“Lawrence Meckan” wrote:

Reconciliation and/or resolution (including judgement) has to take place between people, because at the end of the day, if the institution shoves the issue under the carpet (to save face or otherwise), you’re still left with hurting people. And people matter. The church’s reconciliation with those it has alienated would be a good start. So how do you get someone to agree with you when they feel they have done no wrong? (An extreme example of how the church may deny alienation of people, but anyway..)

Mark’s wise response: I think the methodologies used in both Aboriginal Reconciliation and reconciliation between victims of crimes and young offenders works well.

I would recommend a mediated face to face confrontation with the perpetrators who have to listen to the hurt felt by the victim. The victim tells their story with emphasis on their feelings – not justifying their position or actions. Example: “As a result of your actions I felt …..What happened to me afterwards was ….Now I am feeling …………I forgive you but I cannot forget the hurt.” The forgiveness of the victim is important and a step to the victim’s recovery.

The next step is a road map for the future. How will the perpetrator and victim work together in the future? Can a mutual agreement be reached that will satisfy both sides?