Page 13 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 24
P. 13
Theore�cal Anchors valuable as these frameworks are in direc�ng
To deepen our understanding of the psychology us in how to understand the issue and provide
of moral harm, let’s draw on three primary the- care, they do not illuminate the deeper moral
ore�cal perspec�ves related to the topic. Held issues men�oned above. The deeper ques�ons
in integrated dialogue, these approaches ena- of moral harm—ques�ons of meaning, cons-
ble us to consider the psychological, develop- cience, forgiveness, and redemp�on—cannot
mental, and rela�onal dimensions of moral be fully answered through psychology alone.
harm, thereby facilita�ng the development of a For this reason, it is beneficial to incorporate a
more enriched clinical path toward healing. spiritual and theological perspec�ve as well.
Moral Disengagement Theory: Bandura (1999) Theological perspec�ves invite us to see moral
outlined how individuals jus�fy or minimize harm within the larger narra�ves of sin and
wrongdoing to protect their self-image. Mecha- grace, judgment and mercy, aliena�on and re-
nisms such as displacement of responsibility, concilia�on. Where psychology describes the
euphemis�c labeling, or dehumaniza�on allow mechanisms of harm and the processes of
people to act against their values without fee- change, theology presses us to consider the na-
ling immediate guilt. He makes the case that, ture of the soul, the impact of God’s presence,
over �me, these ra�onaliza�ons o�en collapse and the hope of restora�on. Holding these
on people, leaving behind chronic unresolved perspec�ves together enables us to envision
shame or dissonance that feeds moral harm. care that a�ends not only to the body and
Transtheore�cal Model of Change: Another mind, but also to the spirit.
helpful concept is the understanding that he-
aling is rarely immediate. The Transtheore�cal Chris�an Theological Contribu�ons
Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) descri- The old saying, “hurt people hurt people,” has
bes change and transforma�on through a stage found its way into both popular wisdom and cli-
model comprising five stages of change: pre- nical literature over the past several years (O’
contempla�on, contempla�on, prepara�on, Connor et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2018). At its
ac�on, and maintenance. A cri�cal aspect of core, it names the tragic reality that unhealed
this model suggests that relapse, or the back- wounds o�en spill over, causing harm to
and-forth movement, is a normal and frequent others. This dynamic resonates through each of
occurrence. For example, those who suffer mo- the four forms of moral harm, where suffering
ral harm o�en swing between facing what hap- is not only personally endured but also has the
pened and pushing it away, or between rea- poten�al to be passed on ot others.
ching out for connec�on and then retrea�ng A core Chris�an theological considera�on
back into isola�on. This model helps us under- would ask: Where does this cycle begin? To ask
stand that moral repair is not a linear process, who inflicted the first hurt is to risk an endless
allowing us to resist oversimplified solu�ons. regression. The biblical account locates the
Restora�ve Jus�ce: Restora�ve Jus�ce princip- roots of this cycle in the Fall: humanity is born
les offer a path toward accountability and re- into a world already marked by sin and rupture
pair. Rather than reflexive retribu�ve punish- (Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5). Thus, moral harm is not only
ment, the focus here is on the importance of the result of external betrayal or failure, but
dialogue, genuine truth-telling (to self & also a condi�on woven into the human story.
others), res�tu�on, and reintegra�on (Zehr, We live as fallen persons among other fallen
2002). In cases of moral harm, such approaches persons, all implicated in a pa�ern of sin and
enable survivors to express their experiences harm that is both received and transmi�ed
and allow offenders to take responsibility, crea- (Rom. 3:23).
�ng space for both jus�ce and reconcilia�on. This framing underscores both the universality
Taken together, these psychological perspec�- and the inescapability of moral harm. Every
ves remind us that moral harm is not a simple person lives with a conscience a�uned to moral
wound. It is shaped by the ways people jus�fy viola�on—appalled when harmed, yet compli-
wrongdoing, the non-linear rhythms of healing, cit in harming others. Moral harm, therefore, is
and the need for truth-telling and repair. As not incidental but integral to the human condi-
13
