 The Association for Family Therapy 1998.

Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley

Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Journal of Family Therapy (1998) 20: 77–94
0163–4445 3.00

The use of a decision-based forgiveness interven-

tion within intergenerational family therapy

Frederick A. DiBlasioa

The intervention presented here links intergenerational theory and ther-

apy with a step-by-step forgiveness strategy. Forgiveness is defined from a
cognitive perspective so that it can be applied within a family-of-origin
session. In practice, the forgiveness strategy has been effective in break-
ing dysfunctional patterns from the past that have been carried into the
new family. Long-term effects of forgiveness are analysed through a case
study that includes a six-year follow-up of a family-of-origin forgiveness
intervention.

Introduction
It is often said that you hurt the one you love the most. Family life
can be full of joy and happiness, but even in the healthiest of fami-
lies hurt and pain are inflicted and received. Families which do not
discover ways to minimize hurt and maximize forgiveness may find
that wounds do not heal as easily and the resulting problems carry
over throughout a lifetime. The concern of this paper is to investi-
gate further how forgiveness work might fit within intergenera-
tional intervention. The use of forgiveness is one intervention
technique that may be helpful in bringing about resolution of old
issues and repairing dysfunctional patterns.
Patterns that generate in childhood years are often re-created in
the intimate relationships of the future (Bowen, 1985; Byng-Hall,
1995). Family-of-origin approaches have been used to help people
resolve old problems directly with the people with whom the issues
developed (Bowen, 1985; Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1987; Framo, 1992).
Once resolutions occur, cycles are broken, allowing people to create
not only new transactions with their original family members, but
also with their spouse and children. It is not unusual to find that

a
Professor, School of Social Work, University of Maryland at
Baltimore, 525 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA.
email:[email protected]

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

78 Frederick A. DiBlasio
when old hurts are addressed between an adult child and a parent,
conflicts with the current spouse improve.
The clinical thoughts and strategy presented here are efforts to
enhance the forgiveness portion of intergenerational work. Below,
I provide a definition for forgiveness and a theoretical link to inter-
generational theory. This is followed by a specific step-by-step strat-
egy for conducting a lengthy forgiveness session between adult
children, their siblings and parents. A case example is given that
includes a six-year follow-up of a family-of-origin forgiveness inter-
vention.

Definition of decision-based forgiveness

An emerging theme in the literature is that forgiveness is a process
that takes time and emotional readiness (e.g. Enright and Human
Developmental Study Group, 1991). This may be a slow unfolding
process for some, but the question arises: Does it have to be? I have
been experimenting with a way to accelerate the process and to use
it in a practical way in therapy. I have worked with many cases
where, in my opinion, lasting and true forgiveness was granted in a
day. For example, much instantaneous forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion occur at the beds of dying patients. When emotions are
elevated or the need is critical, people seem to show the capacity to
forgive quickly. With this in mind, I define forgiveness in such a way
that makes it possible for people to have cognitive control over
whether to forgive.
Decision-based forgiveness is defined as the cognitive letting go
of resentment and bitterness and need for vengeance. However, it
is not always the end to emotional pain and hurt. Cognitive func-
tions, although dynamically intertwined with affective states, do not
have to be ruled by emotions. When we are hurt, we seldom feel like
forgiving automatically. Therapists empower clients with control
and assist them in the positive differentiation of the self (Bowen,
1985) when they learn that they do not have to be the victim of their
own or other family members’ emotional states. When forgiveness
is defined as driven primarily by feelings, clients usually wait at the
mercy of time. Unfortunately in all too many cases, this ‘time’
becomes a matter of months and even years.
Forgiveness here is viewed as an act of the will, a choice, to let go
or to hold. People can separate their thoughts of resentment and
bitterness from their feeling of hurt. In fact, such negative thoughts

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 79
often prevent healing, as cognitive and emotional energy are misdi-
rected into bitterness. Ironically, the victims become their own
offenders as they stew in unresolved resentments that can lead to
deterioration in their physical health, emotional stability, cognitive
functioning, behavioural responses and spiritual well-being. A
common belief among some therapists is that victims benefit from
anger, and attempts to remove it too quickly can disempower the
victim (Devenport, 1991). The approach here takes a different
path, where victims become empowered when they make cognitive
choices that promote harmony in their relationships, peace within
themselves and, for believing clients, serenity with God.
When forgiveness comes up in therapy sessions, it is often loosely
defined and is viewed as an ongoing process (DiBlasio and Proctor,
1993). Sometimes the feelings of hurt and pain can take a while to
resolve, while a decision to seek or grant forgiveness promotes heal-
ing. A therapy that starts with forgiveness may create goodwill
between people and a sense of peace within oneself. This allows
therapy to proceed unencumbered by offensiveness and resent-
ments while clients work out issues such as hurt, anger, breakdown
in communication, dissolution of intimacy, dysfunctional behav-
iours and so on. A victim should not forgive out of a sense of capit-
ulation and complete disregard for self-integrity. A therapy
involving forgiveness should work on maintaining the self-respect of
the victim and offender, and act to stop and/or prevent the offence
from recurring.

Intergenerational theory and forgiveness

There is a natural connection between intergenerational theory
and forgiveness. Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark (1973: 53) describe
‘an invisible ledger which keeps account of past and present oblig-
ations among family members’. Implicitly, this emotional ledger
maintains a systemic homeostasis of justice in family relationships,
both past and present. One way that ledgers can be balanced is
through ‘exoneration’ of the mistakes made by people (especially
the parents) in previous generations. Forgiveness of offences can be
a mechanism that balances the ledger without the need for indirect
or direct retribution somewhere else within the family system.
A fundamental aspect of family systems theory described by
Bowen (1985) is to help family members to achieve better ‘differ-
entiation of self’.

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

80 Frederick A. DiBlasio
The level of differentiation is the degree to which one self fuses or merges
into another self in a close emotional relationship . . . [two levels of self are
postulated]: One is solid self, made up of firmly held convictions and
beliefs . . . [and] the pseudo-self, made up of knowledge incorporated by
the intellect and principles and beliefs acquired from others.
(Bowen, 1985: 200)

Forgiveness of past and present family members (and of self) can

help people to positively differentiate from others as they are able
to work through offences with insight, understanding, and perhaps
even empathy for the offenders. During the forgiveness process,
people may come to the realization that the mistakes and imper-
fections of others need not threaten the integrity of the self.
Forgiveness can also assist people to ‘detriangle’. For example, a
35-year-old son who is ineffective in his life because he has not
achieved independence from the emotional relationship with his
mother might forgive his mother’s past over-protectiveness and his
father’s lack of emotional involvement, thereby freeing him from
negotiating a conflictual relationship between the parents. In some
cases, the opposite occurs as adult children form emotional cut-offs.
‘The more intense the cut-off with his parents the more he is
vulnerable to repeating the same pattern in future relationships’
(Bowen, 1985: 535). Consequently, a pattern of emotional distanc-
ing can become a theme of one’s present and future relationships.
Forgiveness of past offences can help an adult child to form healthy
emotional attachments with his parents which aids in breaking the
emotional distancing pattern.
The intergenerational sessions can bring about a clarifying effect
of historical insight that causes family members to recognize “family
scripts” (Byng-Hall, 1995) learned during growing up years. An atti-
tude of forgiveness can sometimes result when family members
comprehend their historical differences from one another and
appreciate how they fit together. Where the systemic fit between
spouses is dysfunctional, one approach to therapy is resolving the
past and consequently the influence the past has on the present.
Byng-Hall (1995) suggests that there is transgenerational trans-
mission of attachment patterns. Consequently ‘replicative scripts’
develop where similar levels of attachment are passed down from
one generation to the next. For example, the lack of positive attach-
ment between a child and parents leads to a lack of attachment
between the child and his or her own children later. On the other

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 81
hand, a corrective attachment script from insecurity to security can
develop if parents achieve a ‘coherent picture of their past [that]
may enable them to provide a better parenting experience for their
own children’ (Byng-Hall, 1995: 120). Forgiveness can be one
avenue that releases the parent from the replicative script in favour
of a corrective attachment script.
Whereas the transgenerational approaches described above
implicitly suggest forgiveness between generations, these
approaches seldom emphasize the role that forgiveness plays or
instruct therapists on how to conduct the forgiveness portions of
transgenerational family sessions. The following is a description of
how forgiveness can be integrated into family-of-origin sessions.

Preparing clients and family members for the session

In many cases, a family, couple or individuals seek therapy for a
particular problem, and during the therapy, recognition of deeper
intergenerational issues comes to light. Intergenerational work,
alongside an ongoing family therapy, is recommended for adult
family members who might be carrying emotional scars from
wounds inflicted during childhood.
An intergenerational meeting usually involves all family members
from the original family attending a session that is separated into
two parts. The total length of the meeting usually ranges from four
to six hours. This may seem like an unconventional departure from
the fifty-minute therapy hour, but the lengthy format is often used
in retreats and encounter experiences with success. The break can
be for a meal, or a recess until the next day.
Framo (1992) recommends that family members be defined as
those who were part of the daily life (usually living together) of the
family during the growing up years. He further recommends that
current spouses of adult children should not be invited to the actual
meeting. Spouses were not part of the original family and can offset
the transactions needing to occur (they can later listen/view an
audio/video tape of the session). Where spouses have issues with
their partner’s original family, another meeting should be
arranged.
When preparing clients for the session, reservations usually
surface. The following are brief comments on the most common
areas of concern in setting up such sessions followed by potential
responses (see Framo (1992) for a full discussion on how to help

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

82 Frederick A. DiBlasio
clients deal with their reservations). First, families are busy and
often separated by great distances – sessions can be held at times of
holidays or family visits, or may just serve as a reason for the origi-
nal family to come together. Second, adult children often view their
parents with ‘child eyes’ and believe their parents are too fragile to
cope with the heavy issues. Practice experience shows that older
people tend to go through a time of reflection of their accomplish-
ments and mistakes (e.g. Erikson, 1950), and not only show a forti-
tude, but also welcome an opportunity to reconcile with their adult
children. Third, some adult clients tend to feel that the meeting will
stir up controversy and ‘sleeping dogs’ ought not to be disturbed.
In my experience these meetings are touching and bring families
closer in a new and better way. Fourth, adult children often view
their family members as opposed to therapy and would never agree
to come. However, I have found that if invitations are carefully
worked out (with the coaching of the therapist), family members
usually respond positively. Although no guarantees can be
extended, meetings are often successful. However, therapists must
always make a careful assessment. Some clients are struggling in
their adult years because they were reared by parents who demon-
strated seriously disturbed behaviours. In many of these situations
the parents not only failed to nurture the child, but also inflicted
much pain upon them through repeated offences. Some of these
parents do not take responsibility for their behaviour, which adds
insult to injury.
A family meeting can be used to assess the situation. If a parent
shows signs of instability, ensuing therapy is directed to helping
clients make adjustments to their expectations by coming to the
realization that the parent will probably not provide for them what
was missing in childhood. Forgiveness is less difficult when clients
comprehend that the parent is emotionally unstable. First, the adult
child finds relief through granting forgiveness (even though the
parent may not have sought it) and becomes less tense and defen-
sive with the parent in future encounters (with proper preparation
the adult child can be coached beforehand in how to respond in a
healthy way during the family meeting). The adult child can learn
to gently set boundaries that eliminate the risk of abuse, without
producing unnecessary emotional friction. Approaching the parent
with a loving and kind attitude reduces strife and soothes the
parent. Soothing reduces stress that in turn acts to lessen dysfunc-
tional behaviours and improves the parent/child relationship.

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 83
Before family members are invited to a session, the therapist
prepares the family and determines if the members are ready for
such a meeting. If family members’ anger is intense and they view
the session as an opportunity to emotionally attack others, then the
therapist should postpone any group gathering until the true
purpose of the meeting can be accepted by family members (see the
case study below). The therapist encourages each one to perceive
the meeting as a time to share thoughts about the past, seek forgive-
ness for offences that they have committed without expectations of
what the others will or should do, and a time to resolve any old
issues. The emphasis on seeking forgiveness reduces expectations
that the other family members will act in contrite ways. The goal is
to have each member focus on their own culpability, without
demands or expectations of others. If a face-to-face briefing cannot
take place because of distance, therapists should try to prepare
family members over the phone.

Conducting the forgiveness session

Perceptions of the past family life
The therapist suggests to the family members that they get one
another’s perceptions of what it was like to grow up (or be parents)
in the family. The therapist cautions the family to tolerate each
perception, and that one’s true perceptions can differ greatly from
another’s viewpoint. This does not mean that any person is being
dishonest, but instead reflects the fact that individuals often see
things from different vantage points. The therapist regulates the
flow so that people have an opportunity to articulate their memo-
ries and feelings.

Definition and contracting

Old unresolved issues often emerge during the exchange. The ther-
apist recommends that a forgiveness time may be useful. The
subject of forgiveness is discussed and defined. During the discus-
sion the utility, benefits and limitations of forgiveness are reviewed.
The belief systems of family members are discussed, especially any
spiritual beliefs about forgiveness. Many clients view forgiveness in
a spiritual context (Worthington and DiBlasio, 1990). In some faith
perspectives, forgiveness is essential and even required. In Judaism,

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

84 Frederick A. DiBlasio
for example, before the feast of Yom Kippur one is required to seek
and grant forgiveness. For Christian believers, holding unforgive-
ness separates one from a relationship with God (Matthew 6:14–15,
18:35; Mark 11:25). The therapist has to deal with the spiritual
material of religious clients because it shapes who they are and
defines their meaning of life. A common fear of many religiously
oriented clients is that the therapist will not appreciate or under-
stand their faith perspective (e.g. King, 1978).
Guidelines are established with the family that each will be given
the opportunity (but not required) to seek forgiveness for their own
offences. The family is reminded that this is not a time to hold
expectations of others, but instead a time for personal accountabil-
ity. Forgiveness should be a free will endeavour, and not result from
manipulation or control of another. The family is cautioned that
one may choose to forgive or not to forgive.
The therapist explains how the session will be conducted and
that each person will have an opportunity to voice at least one area
where they are seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness seems to be best
served when one person is forgiven for one concrete offence at a
time (Enright and Human Development Study Group, 1991).

Statement of the offence

After the above two steps, each person will be given an opportunity
to state an offence and then to proceed through the steps listed
below. The therapist asks the offender to state the offence explicitly.
The following is an example of a clear statement: ‘I am seeking
forgiveness for all the times I wasn’t home on evenings and week-
ends because I was pursuing my own selfish desires.’ An inappro-
priate framing of the same offence would be: ‘I am seeking
forgiveness for being out of the house to get away from my unruly
children and nagging wife.’ The statement must clearly show that
the offender believes an offence has been committed. The therapist
patiently works with the offender until a statement is articulated
that reflects a sufficient degree of culpability and there is adequate
specificity. If the statement is rather general, such as forgiveness for
‘all the times I have let you down’, the offender is asked to give a few
specific examples.
At times, an offence is not a result of ill will or inappropriate
behaviour on the part of the offender. Consider the actual family
situation where a brother learned years later that he offended his

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 85
older brother by going off to college. The older brother thought
that his younger brother should have stayed at home to take his
turn bringing money into their impoverished family. The younger
brother never knew his brother held such a grudge and resentment.
The younger brother was truly empathetic to the problem his leav-
ing caused his brother, but he believed his older brother’s altruism
was dysfunctional because it allowed the parents to be irresponsible.
As a result the younger brother’s statement of ‘I’m seeking forgive-
ness for the hurt that was caused by my leaving to go to college’ was
appropriate given the situation.

Questions about the offence and explanation

It is easier to forgive when people have enough information about
the offence for which they are extending forgiveness (Hargrave,
1994). Possibilities for empathy increase when there is information
and explanation. It also helps the victim to have accurate informa-
tion, rather than depending on imagination or assumptions which
can be worse than the actual reality. Insight and understanding of
past offences are important elements for healing within the inter-
generational family. There is a risk that the added information may
make the situation more hurtful as details are learned for the first
time. However, I have found that comfort usually follows as infor-
mation is ‘out on the table’ and the opportunity to settle the prob-
lem is at hand.
When the family members have exhausted their questions, the
therapist might add a few questions that may assist in the ultimate
understanding of the offence. An additional role of the therapist
during this stage is to be on the alert to intercept inappropriate
questions. For example, if a father seeks forgiveness for an affair he
had that almost broke up the family, requests by the adult children
for explicit sexual details would be counterproductive.
Normally, in the above process the offender has ample opportu-
nity to explain his or her behaviour. The therapist requests that the
offender summarizes the reason(s) that he or she committed the
offence, being careful to announce that the explanation will not be
misinterpreted as the offender’s bid to excuse the behaviour. The
following is a helpful statement for the therapist to make to the
offender, given culpability: ‘I can tell that you want to own up to the
mistakes that you have made, and I realize that you may not want to
readily answer this, but I think it would be helpful if you were to

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

86 Frederick A. DiBlasio
summarize the explanation behind your actions.’ After the
summary the therapist repeats the explanation, clarifying any ques-
tions.

Disclosure of the hurt and pain

The therapist aims to create a climate for the victim(s) to give a full
accounting of feelings. The therapist may say, ‘Although it may be
difficult and even hurtful to hear, it is important for you to describe
your feelings as completely as you can’. Full attention is given to the
victim, and the therapist uses basic therapy skills to help the victim
to launch into a deeper area of feeling content. The exhaustion of
feeling material is critical. Some victims are out of touch with their
underlying anger and resentment, however, patient exploration by
the therapist can help to penetrate this denial. Some offences hurt
more than one person, therefore each victim should have ample
time to reveal his or her feelings.
Conversely, the offenders benefit by hearing the extent of pain
caused by their behaviour. This disclosure puts offenders through a
measure of suffering, and some suffering and shame is helpful for
the building of empathy of the offender for the victim and also
helpful for self-forgiveness (e.g. Ward, 1972). In some situations,
the victim’s anger leads to excessively sharp and very cruel state-
ments that ultimately can do more harm than good. The expression
can even be a way that the victim is seeking revenge by purposely
inflicting pain on to the offender. In such cases the therapist may
take a break and allow the victim to get his or her thoughts together.
It seems that some degree of the therapist controlling excessive
anger and hostility is necessary to promote healing (cf. Madanes,
1996; Worthington, 1991).
The therapist asks the offender to summarize the hurt feelings of
the victim. The offender’s identification with the victim’s suffering
helps the victim not only to feel understood, but also verifies that
the offender realizes the harm he or she inflicted. Forgiveness is
easier when the victim experiences the empathy of the offender.
Paul and Paul (1967) found that in grief work family members can
be freed from painful feelings through the open expression of grief
and the empathetic responses among family members.
In many situations, offensive behaviours have hurt both the
victims and the offenders. Offenders may be suffering from shame
and guilt, the knowledge that they have hurt someone they love,

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 87
and other negative consequences of their behaviour. The empathy
of the victim towards the offender helps in the forgiveness process
between the two and also in the offender achieving self-forgiveness.
(See Wilkinson (1992) for a discussion on the systemic effects of
empathy in family therapy.)

Plan to stop/prevent offensive behaviour

A request by an offender to be forgiven for an offence that is still
going on is obviously meaningless. By definition of seeking forgive-
ness, reluctance to stop and/or prevent the behaviour reflects an
unreadiness on the part of the offender in the forgiveness process.
Interestingly, this lack of follow-through does not necessarily
prevent the victim from choosing to forgive. The seeking and grant-
ing of forgiveness often go together, but both can be independent
of the other.
The decision to stop or prevent the offensive behaviour should
be followed up with action. If a plan is carefully laid out it facilitates
the ability of the other to forgive and gives the offender hope that
he or she can turn away from their reprehensible behaviours. The
offender should come up with as many items for a plan as possible.
It is not unusual that an offender will be at a loss as to how to do
this, thereby requiring the help of the therapist. Where possible, the
plan may contain a measure of symbolic or actual restitution, which
is not incompatible with forgiveness. By providing restitution the
offender is restored to a more relative place of equality with the
victim.
Examples of plans include:
• a previously neglectful parent will call the son/daughter regularly
to demonstrate care and concern;
• a parent who was overly critical might find a person with whom to
speak on a weekly basis about how to send accepting messages;
• a child who treated the parents poorly will take over some area of
need for the ageing parents, such as mowing of their lawn each
week.
Trust is a basic factor in any relationship. Restoring someone to full
confidence and trust is not always an easy thing to do. The question
arises, ‘Does forgiveness mean that one extends full trust to the
individual in the future?’ This is obviously a personal decision.
Some see trust as an ultimate goal of a forgiveness process

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

88 Frederick A. DiBlasio
(Veenstra, 1992). The plan can contain a way that the offender can
rebuild trust.

Caution to the forgiver

As mentioned above, the person offended can choose to forgive or
not to forgive at the time of the session. Caution is extended to the
forgiver that, by definition, granting forgiveness means they cannot
use the offence as a weapon against the offender in the future.
Forgiveness does not mean that discussions about the offence end.
On the contrary, working through residual problems and feelings is
necessary. However, such discussions are to be for constructive
purposes to build up, rather than tear down, the relationship.
The forgiveness intervention tends to bring a measure of healing
to the hurt. However, some clients may feel surges of anger or
resentment build even after granting forgiveness. If this occurs the
forgivers should not treat the feelings as a sign that forgiveness has
not occurred, but instead should use cognitive and/or spiritual
methods to regulate unwanted thoughts. Sometimes, breaking out
of the immediate environment, such as taking a walk, can help one
refocus on a forgiveness decision.

Formal request
In this stage the offender may request forgiveness for the offence.
The therapist suggests that the offender take time to give a heartfelt
request in a full way, being sure to summarize some of the things
said in the preceding steps. Elaborating on the actual apology has
been found in one experiment (with children) to lead to more
forgiveness (Darby and Schlenker, 1982).
The therapist can suggest that offenders do one or a combina-
tion of three things when verbalizing requests for forgiveness: (1) sit
next to the victim; (2) take the victim’s hand; and/or (3) get down
on their knees. Human touch is powerful, and assists in the connec-
tiveness between an offender and victim if the two can tolerate the
physical closeness. Getting down on the knees is helpful because it
adds the component of humility and repentence that ultimately is
beneficial to all concerned (Madanes, 1996).
The therapist may accentuate the formality by recording the date
and time of the request, and ask the family to record each of their
forgiveness moments. Across cultures, witnesses are used to verify

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 89
transactions between people. Therapists portray themselves as
witnesses who could at any time document that the forgiveness
moment occurred. The formality accentuates that the request
grows out of a well thought-out process that includes not only
remorse but also a plan to turn away from the behaviour. It is not
something asked cavalierly, but instead something that comes from
the heart and is sincere.

Ceremonial act
Erikson (1950) considered that in all cultures ceremonial acts func-
tion to mark transition into certain developmental phases. They
explicitly represent and signal to one’s group a rite of passage.
Although ceremonial acts or rituals for forgiveness need not be
public, they signal to the family and community that a transition has
occurred. Symbolically in the minds of the participants and
observers it makes resolute those things that have been accom-
plished, and can serve as an emotional bonding of the family and
reinforce the cognitive commitment of forgiveness and perhaps the
reconciliation that was achieved.
After each member has had an opportunity to state an offence
and to go through the ensuing steps above, the family is asked to
plan a ceremonial act to represent the forgiveness. Ceremonial acts
can be between individuals or designed for the whole family. After
explaining the importance of such a symbolic representation, the
therapist should encourage the family to bring up some ideas. The
therapist should be prepared with a few ideas, but it is more mean-
ingful for the family if members work it through. If the family is
truly ‘stuck’ and after significant encouragement (and use of
silence by the therapist), the therapist may want to give some seeds
of ideas without much detail. Family members may choose to
embellish one of the ideas with their own design.
Examples of ceremonial acts or rituals are:

• creation of a family album to which each family member brings a

written paragraph on family strengths and possible photographs.
The creation of the album reflects the forgiveness and future
unity of the family;
• an actual burial of the ‘family hatchet’. In the hole (dug deep to
represent no return) is dropped the hatchet, and in turn, a writ-
ten list of each member’s previous grievances.

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

90 Frederick A. DiBlasio

Case example
Mrs C., a 35-year-old mother of two children, came into therapy
because of marital conflict and depression to the point of planning
suicide. During the individual and couple therapy, it became known
that she had significant antagonistic feelings towards her brother
and father, and consequently the therapist suggested a family-of-
origin meeting. Joining Mrs C. for the session was her father (60
years old), brother (32 years old) and sister (30 years old). The
mother is deceased.
In the first two hours the family gave their perceptions of what it
was like during the growing up years. Mrs C. heard her father
explain how much he admired the graceful and independent spirit
of his daughter. With all the tension between father and daughter
over her lifetime, compliments like these were seldom given or
received. Mrs C. was deeply touched by his comments.
The session lasted for approximately four-and-half hours, with a
lunch break at the midway point. During the lunch break, the
brother and Mrs C. met on their own and subsequently reported
that they had resolved three decades of resentment and bitterness
in less than twenty minutes through forgiveness. They claimed that
they had finally found a loving brother/sister relationship.
In the second half of the session, father and brother worked
together on the anger the son felt against his father. Many of the
difficulties and historical interpersonal problems between the two
were similar to those Mrs C. had with her father. When given an
explanation, the father reported that parenting had been very
different thirty years ago, and he was not aware of how he was
emotionally neglecting his children. He explained that expecta-
tions were different in earlier times, with the father’s role largely
defined by working very hard and providing financially for his
family. He also explained that he lacked sufficient role models
because his parents were emotionally rigid, especially his father. He
was truly remorseful that he had caused his children so much pain
and sought their forgiveness.
The third child had a different viewpoint of the father’s parent-
ing. As a child she was not only the youngest, but was described as
‘needy’ and her father had spent more time and focus on her. This
intensified the pain for the other two as they saw that their father
was able to nurture, but did not direct that nurturance to them. The
father realized that he favoured the youngest, and explained that

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 91
she needed so much help because of her fragility. The other two
siblings were viewed as strong and independent. This meeting was
the first time the family had ever reviewed the dynamics of the grow-
ing up years.
In a ceremonial exercise, the family wrote the offences of others
in the form of an ‘I owe you (IOU)’. For example, Mrs C.’s IOU
held against her father was that he owed her thirty-five years of
nurturance and attention. The therapist suggested that they should
do what they wanted with the IOUs: they could put them away in a
secure and safe place, they could slip them into a pocket and think
about it later, or they could tear them up and thereby release the
other from the debt. All family members tore up the IOUs and
embarked on a new beginning. The father wrote in a letter to the
therapist a few weeks later: ‘Tearing up that IOU was probably the
hardest work I’ve ever done in my life. [The ceremonial exercise]
brought accumulation of years of undealt-with hurts to a point of
clear focus.’
By this time everyone was exhausted, and the therapist decided
to end the session. Realizing that Mrs C. and her father had not had
a full opportunity to process their feelings, the therapist recom-
mended a meeting between them at a later date. As the therapist
met individually with Mrs C. to review the family session and to
prepare for the meeting with her father, he discovered that Mrs C.’s
primary objective was (in her own words) ‘to get my claws into my
father’. She described a hatred towards him that had not lessened
during the family session. The therapist said that it would be wise to
postpone the follow-up session between Mrs C. and her father. If
Mrs C. continued in her hatred the session might only become a
battleground on which to have a counterproductive fight and there-
fore the postponement made therapeutic sense. Interestingly, since
Mrs C. did not want to block the progress that was being made she
began to work harder in this individual session.
The therapist was able to tie Mrs C.’s Christian faith into the deci-
sion to forgive. Mrs C. believed that forgiveness was a critical foun-
dation in her faith, and that the unforgiveness and hatred towards
her father had for years kept her distant from God. She saw forgive-
ness not as optional, but instead mandatory and healing from a spir-
itual perspective. The separation of reason and will from emotional
readiness made a lot of sense to her. She said, ‘It is like I’m flying in
the clouds and suddenly there is a break in the clouds and I can see
clearly all the way down.’ This was the forgiveness moment for Mrs

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

92 Frederick A. DiBlasio
C. The therapist asked her to put her decision into words. She
simply said, ‘I forgive my father’. Starting on the day of that deci-
sion, the therapist observed a noticeable positive change in her feel-
ings towards her father, and a shift out of her depression. She
improved rapidly and became more content than she had ever felt
in her life before. The angry episodes with her husband and chil-
dren significantly decreased and the marital therapy was terminated
a few weeks after this session.
The daughter and father met within a week of the above individ-
ual session and shared feelings of hurt and pain, followed by
requests for forgiveness. They worked out a plan to prevent the
sharp attacks on one another. The father suggested that they should
each tug on the ear to signal when the other was beginning to cross
a line of frustration. They realized that each was truly not aware
when they were becoming offensive. During the asking and grant-
ing of forgiveness, father and daughter shed tears and hugged one
another for the first time that either could remember.

Follow-up
The family members took part in a live discussion at a National
Conference on Forgiveness in Clinical Practice in Baltimore, USA
in 1996, six years after the forgiveness intervention. They described
it as a life-changing experience. The advances made that day led to
many times of peaceful and enjoyable family visits and holidays
together. The son entered therapy shortly after the initial family
session and had additional sessions with his father.
The father brought out a tattered piece of paper on which he
wrote three points made by the therapist that could help him in
relationships with his children. He said that he kept it on the visor
in his car and had flipped it down occasionaly over the past six years
to keep reminding himself what he needed to do.

Limitations
The limitations of this case discovered in the follow-up interview
have subsequently changed the practice approach presented above.
First, the father reported he had no idea that two of his children
were so angry with him. He said in the follow-up interview that
although the session was powerful and helpful, he felt ‘ambushed’.
The daughter also showed signs of unreadiness (a problem that was

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

 Decision-based forgiveness intervention 93
corrected in her individual session following the family session).
Second, the father and son reported that, for them, forgiveness
came slowly. Their comments reflected that they understood recon-
ciliation and forgiveness as the same. In a related point, forgiveness
was extended without full understanding of the commitment that is
involved in granting forgiveness. The follow-up demonstrated the
need to define forgiveness more clearly and to build a contracting
stage and prepare family members for the session. In addition, ther-
apists should be on the alert for ‘pseudo-forgiveness’, where the atti-
tude or words of the forgiver reflect less than a true forgiveness
decision.

Conclusion
Forgiveness is certainly not a new phenomenon but it is only in
recent years that it has received much attention in therapy.
Forgiveness interventions are not the panacea for problems existing
between family members, but instead may provide a springboard
for developing a new reality within relationships. Forgiveness can
set the stage for family-of-origin members to experience each other
in beneficial ways. In addition, clients who forgive may be released
from negative emotions that interfere with self-identity. It can begin
a mutual reciprocity in positive exchanges in behaviours that can be
the starting point for uniting family relationships within and
between generations.

References
Boszormenyi-Nagy, I, and Spark, G. M. (1973) Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in
Intergenerational Family Therapy. New York: Harper & Row.
Bowen, M. (1985) Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Byng-Hall, J. (1995) Rewriting Family Scripts: Improvisation and System Change. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Darby, B. W. and Schlenker, B. R. (1982) Children’s reactions to apologies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43: 742–753.
Devenport, D. S. (1991) The junctions of anger and forgiveness: guidelines for
psychotherapy with victims. Psychotherapy, 28: 140–144.
DiBlasio, F. A. and Proctor, J. H. (1993) Therapists and the clinical use of forgive-
ness. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21: 175–184.
Enright, R. D. and The Human Development Study Group (1991) The moral
development of forgiveness. In: W. Kurtines and J. Gewirtz (eds) Handbook of
Moral Behaviour and Development (Vol. 1: 123–152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erikson, E. H. (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

94 Frederick A. DiBlasio
Framo, J. L. (1992) Family-of-origin Therapy: An Intergenerational Approach. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Hargrave, T. (1994) Families and Forgiveness: Healing Wounds in the Intergenerational
Family. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
King, R. R. jun. (1978) Evangelical Christians and professional counseling: a
conflict of values? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 6: 276–281.
Madanes, C. (1996) Sex, Love and Violence. New York: W. W. Norton.
Paul, N. L. and Paul, B. B. (1967) The use of empathy in the resolution of grief.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 11: 153–169.
Veenstra, G. (1992) Psychological concepts of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 11: 160–169.
Ward, H. P. (1972) Shame – a necessity for growth in therapy. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 26: 232–242.
Wilkinson, M. (1992) How do we understand empathy systemically? Journal of
Family Therapy, 14: 193–205.
Worthington, E. L. jun. (1991) A primer on intake: 1992 interviews with couples.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 19: 344–350.
Worthington, E. L. jun. and DiBlasio, F. A. (1990) Promoting mutual forgiveness
within the fractured relationship. Psychotherapy, 27: 219–223.

 1998 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice