The Psychological Harm of Forgiving the Unrepentant
“You need to forgive for yourself.”
“Holding onto anger only hurts you.”
“Forgiveness is how you let go.”
This terrible advice shifts responsibility away from the person who caused harm and onto the person who endured it.
This is not healing; it is a damaging psychological contortion that disregards the real impact on the harmed individual.
Presenting this approach as emotionally mature or psychologically healthy is fundamentally flawed.
What I Mean by Toxic Forgiveness
By toxic forgiveness, I mean the cultural practice of encouraging forgiveness in the absence of accountability, where responsibility is shifted away from the person who caused harm and onto the person who was harmed, often framed as self-care, emotional maturity, or psychological health.
This form of forgiveness prioritises the social comfort of others and emotionally bypasses truth, repair, and justice.
It asks the injured party to resolve a moral rupture internally, while leaving the underlying behaviour unchanged.
Depriving a person of their right to have harm acknowledged not only injures the individual, but poisons relationships over time. Human connection cannot survive long-term in such an environment, be it a parent, sibling, friend, or other relationship
A person who is allowed or enabled to harm repeatedly learns that they can act without consequence. This creates a volatile and dangerous mentality and often results in escalating harmful behaviour.
Over the past seventy years since World War II, forgiveness has been rebranded as an act of self-care — a path to inner peace and personal growth. This cultural shift echoes what theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned against as “cheap grace”: forgiveness offered without repentance or responsibility (The Cost of Discipleship, 1937).
“You wronged me, own it” has quietly become “I need to work on letting this go.”
Resolution stops being the priority.
What Forgiveness Actually Means
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines forgive as:
- ceasing to feel resentment toward an offender
- giving up a claim to retribution
- granting relief from a debt or obligation
According to this definition, for forgiveness to occur it requires the accused to acknowledge a moral debt has accrued through the committal of a wrongdoing.
Acknowledge.
If the wrongdoer does not acknowledge that a wrong has occurred, does not accept responsibility for it, and does not express genuine regret, then forgiveness is logically not possible.
Why Bystanders Encourage Unconditional Forgiveness
Forcing forgiveness without requiring accountability from the wrongdoer is emotionally cheaper for everyone involved, except the injured party.
Everyone else feels better.
No one has to confront difficult or dangerous behaviour.
No one has to insist on change.
Conflict is buried or ignored, and life goes on.
People who encourage victims to forgive unconditionally should be treated with extreme caution. Often, they care less about the victim’s pain and more about their own low tolerance for conflict and their desire for social calm. The dust may seem to settle, and it may appear that people have “moved on,” but this is rarely true for the aggrieved.
What is convenient for everyone else is corrosive for the harmed individual.
Victims who are empathic, conflict-averse, or highly self-reflective are frequently pressured to forgive unconditionally. This pressure is manipulative and framed as being in their best interests, necessary for wellbeing, growth, or emotional maturity.
The harmed person may say, “I’m okay,” or “Let’s just forget it,” after an injustice or during later conflict. This often happens because the path to accountability has been made too costly. It becomes easier to carry the hurt alone than to endure the social consequences of insisting on truth and restitution.
In this way, bystanders become complicit. And the wronged individual is harmed again.
When the Wrongdoer Refuses to Take Responsibility
Accountability requires self-awareness, reflection, and the capacity to admit wrongdoing. Faced with the impact of their actions, many people will do or say almost anything to avoid it.
How hard is it to acknowledge you were wrong and make amends?
It turns out, extremely hard.
Humans develop what psychologists call a sense of self: an internal library describing who we believe we are. Most people are psychologically invested in seeing themselves as “good.” When evidence threatens that self-image, defensiveness often follows.
When a person acts harmfully, the contradiction between behaviour and identity can feel intolerable. In reality, no one is wholly good or wholly bad. Most of us are mostly good and occasionally do harmful or foolish things.
A psychologically healthy adult can accept this. For them, taking responsibility for isolated actions makes sense, and repair follows naturally.
For someone whose sense of being a “good person” is fragile, contradictory evidence feels dangerous. Accountability threatens collapse. These individuals may dismiss, undermine, minimise, deflect, or lie. Responsibility will not be forthcoming.
You are not obligated to forgive people who refuse to acknowledge harm.
Forgiveness should never be offered where harm has not been recognised.
Will this affect your relationship with them? Almost certainly.
That is not your fault.
You are not being unreasonable.
You are not overly sensitive.
You are not “making a big deal out of nothing.”
The Church’s Approach to Forgiveness
I am non-religious and take issue with many aspects of religion. The Christian Church’s approach to forgiveness is one notable exception. The Church does encourage forgiveness, but crucially, only after absolution.
What Is Absolution?
Absolution requires three non-negotiable actions by the wrongdoer:
- Acknowledgement of wrongdoing
Naming the act as wrong, without minimising, reframing, or justifying it. - Acceptance of moral responsibility
“I did this,” rather than “this happened” or “we both made mistakes.” - A firm purpose of amendment
A genuine intention to change behaviour and make amends where possible.
If any of these elements are missing, absolution is not valid — and forgiveness is not possible.
“Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Popular culture loves this line.
Films and soundbites present forgiveness as a moral shortcut. Classical theology never interpreted it to mean that harm does not matter, repentance is unnecessary, or victims are obliged to release anger for their own good.
Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18 is explicit:
“If your brother sins, rebuke him; if he repents, forgive him.”
That conditional clause mattered then. It should matter now.
The religious call this absolution.
The non-religious call it accountability.
The Balanced Perspective: Accountability vs. Unfair Blame
Some people are unfairly scrutinised, blamed, or critiqued — not because they habitually do wrong, but because they are convenient targets. Scapegoats.
This can happen in families, workplaces, and social groups. Yes, it is possible to lack social finesse or make frequent mistakes. But it is also possible that you have simply become accustomed to being blamed.
Unsure which applies? Step outside your immediate bubble. Talk to someone neutral.
The Benchmark For Accountability
Accountability is appropriate and important when harm has actually occurred.
Who decides when harm, is harmful enough?
A useful benchmark is to apply the reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person consider the words or actions harmful?
When this is unclear, seeking an outside perspective, from friends, family, or a therapist, can help distinguish genuine harm from misplaced blame.
For Those Who Are Constantly Being Blamed
For people repeatedly held responsible for situations where they have not acted wrongly, the solution is not deeper self-interrogation or performative apology. The answer is to use your judgment to seek clarity.
Practical steps can include:
- seeking outside perspective.
- setting limits on endless self-explanation when wrong-doing is claimed.
- watching patterns — yours and others’.
- take the initiative to take accountability when you are wrong, assert reasonable boundaries when you are not.
Final Thoughts
Healing and forgiveness are not the same thing.
Healing involves processing, understanding, and integration.
Forgiveness is the release of moral debt.
Healing can occur when genuine forgiveness is possible — but it can also occur without it.
Leave a Reply