Page 134 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

A Portrait of a Christian Psychologist: Paul C. Vitz

Paul C. Vitz and Jennifer M. Meade (USA)
Self-forgiveness in Psychology and Psychotherapy:

a Critique 1

Abstract The most common situation occurs when the
This critique proposes that self-forgiveness is a client is the transgressor, who has harmed ano-
misleading and inaccurate concept for under- ther and potentially himself, and he either does
standing the conditions to which it is applied. not receive the desired forgiveness from the
Besides the fact that traditional religion provi- other or, having received it, he does not feel
des no rationale for self-forgiveness, four spe- forgiven. In this situation clients can interpret
cific criticisms are presented. 1. Self-forgiveness their painful negative feelings as the result of
causes splitting of the self, creating various not having forgiven their “self.” Self-forgiveness
problems. 2. It involves a conflict of interest therapy therefore aims to reduce these negative
between the self that judges and the self that is feelings.
judged. 3. Through its extreme emphasis on the Specifically, self-forgiveness seeks to address
self, it promotes narcissism and appeals to nar- the following common barriers to healing: a)
cissists. 4. Research indicates that interpersonal feelings of unworthiness (client sees his or her
forgiveness and self or intrapersonal forgiveness self or identity as damaged by wrong actions);
involve different psychological processes. We b) doubts that he or she can be relieved of pu-
conclude that self-acceptance is a more accura- nishment because the action was so horrible; c)
te and useful term for the process and benefits beliefs that any previous forgiveness is false or
attributed to self-forgiveness. “cheap” as it was offered too quickly or too easi-
ly; and d) perceived inability to make adequate
Self-forgiveness in Psychotherapy: A Critique reparation or restitution (i.e., to do appropriate
In recent years the concept of self-forgiveness penance).
has become familiar in the psychotherapeutic
and counseling literature (E. g. Coyle, C. T., Origins of the Concept of Self-forgiveness
1999, Dillon, R. S., 2001, Enright, R. D., 1996, In the last 70 years or so, the notion of the self
Flannigan, B., 1996, Hall & Fincham 2005, as autonomous and as the central psychological
2008, Worthington 2006). Advocates of self- reality has been greatly popularized in Western
forgiveness are responding to client guilt and/ society, especially in the United States. (For
or shame resulting from the commission of early Christian examples see Fosdick, 1932,
an injustice. Often these negative and painful 1943; Peale, 1937, 1952; for especially influen-
feelings are very persistent. Proponents of self- tial psychologists, see Maslow, 1954, 1970; Ro-
forgiveness point to the successful use of inter- gers, 1961; for a critique of this movement of
personal forgiveness in therapy. (See Coleman, self-preoccupation see Vitz, 1977, 1994.) Prior
P. W., 1998, Coyle, C. T., & Enright, R. D.,1997, to recent decades in the United States self-for-
DiBlasio, F. A.,1998, 2000, Enright, R. D., 2002, giveness appears to be absent from all the psy-
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R., 2000, Exline, chological literature. Although the distinctive
J. J., & Baumeister, R. F., 2000), Fergusson, D. concept of interpersonal forgiveness has deep
M., Horwood, J., & Ridder, E. M., 2006, Wort- and ancient roots in a Judeo-Christian context,
hington, E. L.,1998, 2003). The basic claim of nowhere in that long tradition is the Jewish or
self-forgiveness advocates is that since inter- Christian believer instructed to forgive him
personal forgiveness is now used in therapy and or herself. Rather, the contrary is true: only
known to be beneficial logically it now makes God or the person sinned against can forgive
sense for “the wrongdoer to perform his own wrong-doing. For an explicit rejection of self-
variant of the forgiveness process, namely, that forgiveness from an Eastern Orthodox perspec-
of self-forgiveness” (North, 1998, p.29). tive see Gassin (2001).

1 First published in: J Relig Health (2011) 50: 248-263
134