Wiesenthal, himself, chose to say nothing. In the company of the German officer who was dying, Wiesenthal neither forgave him, nor did he refuse to forgive him. He felt that to speak at all could imperil his own life. The officer bequeathed his personal effects to Wiesenthal, who kept them safe and returned them to the officer’s mother after the war. He did not tell the mother how they had met.
The Christian and Buddhist theologians advocated forgiveness, as I recall, for a variety of reasons. It has been years since I read the book. The Jewish theologians may have been mixed in their response. I think I should read the book again to see what I get out of it this time.
Interesting. When you say they advocated forgiveness, do you recall whether they said exactly how to forgive? It seems to me that, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, so too there is more than one way to forgive. I mean, consider the different ways the word is defined in any dictionary:
for·give
[fer-giv] verb, -gave, -giv·en, -giv·ing.
–verb (used with object)
- to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
- to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
- to grant pardon to (a person).
- to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one’s enemies.
- to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
What I hear most of the thoughtful folks here in this discussion advocating is a kind of limited, albeit unconditional, forgiveness in the sense of definition (4). I can see how forgiving in that sense might not require any conditions be met on the part of the one forgiven. The more practical question (and perhaps more important one) is this: What must a person do to require me to forgive him in the sense of definitions (1), (2) and (3)?
For example, think about the story of the Prodigal Son. The father forgives the son who returns home not only in the sense of (4), but also in every sense, including (1), (2) and (3). The son is prepared to get what he deserves–for his father to disown him and let him live at home as a slave, instead of a son. His hope is that dad will only cease to be angry with him. But rather than merely cease to hold a grudge, dad ceases to hold his son’s sins against his son. He not only has no hard feelings, he also has no consequences–no debt for his son to pay, no punishment for his wrong doing! Don’t you agree? and if you do agree with me, then what did the Prodigal Son have to do (if anything) to meet the condition (if any) to be forgiven by his father in this unusually loving and profoundly complete way?
11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.
“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
(Luke 15)
) Peter had not repented. When Jesus was on the cross, he asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him for they knew not what they were doing. Did Peter not really know what he was doing? Surely he was wrong not to be there for Christ. But did he not truly understand how wrong it is not to defend the Son of God? We know he knew Jesus was the Son of God. After all, after Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, Christ promised Peter the keys to the Kingdom. I’ll presume that Peter knew on an intellectual level what he was doing, but that he didn’t fully grasp it.
).