Admittedly, at times, that’s quite challenging. However, it remains significantly simpler than acting as if an offense never happened or denying ourselves the right to feel pain when someone acts hurtfully. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “It is not within our ability to avoid feeling or to erase a wrong; but the heart that surrenders to the Holy Spirit transforms injury into empathy and cleanses the memory by converting pain into intercession” (No. 2843).

One can choose to forgive an individual — meaning to decline to wish harm or deliver insult upon them for the pain they have caused you — while still experiencing hurt, anger, or a variety of other emotions. Similarly, it is feasible to forgive the wrongdoer and yet still require them to rectify the situation in some manner. Forgiveness derives from love. To love another is to act in their best interest. Allowing individuals to engage in harmful behavior without insisting they learn from their errors and mend the harm they have caused is not acting in their best interest. It is not love. It is complicity.

When viewed through this perspective, it becomes evident that we may forgive someone yet not restore our relationship with them. Once more, according to Augustine, reconciliation is the “calmness that arises from proper arrangement.” In other terms, reconciliation can only occur when both the aggrieved party and the wrongdoer have a shared commitment to rectify the situation. Forgiveness enables the person who has been wronged to offer the chance for reconciliation; however, it is ultimately the offender’s choice whether to accept that offer. The person who was offended is not required to restore the relationship alone by feigning that all is well when it is evidently not. Forgiveness is fundamentally a gift we grant ourselves. Reconciliation is a reciprocal gift that two individuals share with each other by dedicating themselves to the process of mending the harm that was inflicted.

For reconciliation to take place, the wrongdoer must be capable of doing three things: experiencing it, accepting it, and repairing it. Initially, they must demonstrate that they comprehend the extent of the harm they have inflicted. They cannot simply utter the “magic words” — such as “sorry” — and expect it to vanish. They have a responsibility to empathize with you and exhibit that they grasp the suffering their actions have resulted in.

Secondly, they must take responsibility. They tend to provide a lackluster, “I apologize, but …” or, “If you weren’t so sensitive, or if your expectations weren’t so high, or if you could just take a joke.” They should be capable of meeting your gaze and stating, “You had a RIGHT to demand more from me.”

Ultimately, they must show their readiness to rectify the harm they have inflicted and look into methods to prevent similar harm from occurring in the future. Ideally, they will present some of their own suggestions on how they will rectify the situation and avoid causing similar grievances again. Regardless, they also have a responsibility to be prepared to undertake any reasonable actions you might request from them to mend the damage and demonstrate their regret. The injured party cannot use the offense as leverage over the offender or continuously alter the expectations, but they can demand that any necessary actions to address the harm are indeed carried out.

The offender’s reluctance to engage in any or all of these actions does not obligate the offended individual to attempt to resolve matters independently. It simply indicates that, in this situation, forgiveness might be offered even if reconciliation is not possible.

Dr. Greg Popcak is the host of More2Life Radio and the author of many books including, “God Help Me, These People Are Driving Me Nuts: Making Peace With Difficult People” (Crossroad, $17.95).