AN Irish Times editorial on January 24th praised the German and Czech governments for formally committing themselves to encouraging "mutual forgiveness". The writer drew a contrast with events in Northern Ireland, mentioning particularly the events in Drumcree and the failure of the churches.

While clearly supporting the thrust of the editorial, it is important to make a number of distinctions. One is that the second World War is over both Germany and the Czech Republic now have political and economic interests in developing their relationship. This is not to play down the achievement involved in their agreement, but merely to point out that things are now a little easier for them.

Secondly, both the British and Irish governments have committed themselves in the Anglo Irish Agreement to working for reconciliation.

Thirdly, the title chosen for the Irish Times editorial was "mutual forgiveness", not "mutual apology", or "reconciliation". It is important to note this because more and more people use the terms "forgiveness" and "reconciliation" as if they are interchangeable.

They are not. Reconciliation is a complex process made up of at least forgiveness, apology, and justice, where justice refers, among other things, to restitution and the issue of punishment.

It is perfectly possible for a victim to forgive a perpetrator without there being any reconciliation. These cannot be reconciliation unless the victim forgives and the perpetrator also admits guilt, accepts responsibility, expresses contribution, makes a serious effort to undo the harm done to the extent this is possible, and agrees to act differently in the future.

PERHAPS the reason for not sufficient. There is a third element justice. This may involve restitution and punishment we don't simply accept apologies from rapists, we lock them up. The role of the criminal justice system is crucial it acts as an independent arbiter. It supports the victim's view of the wrong it shows that his or her view is not only a subjective one. Through punishment it also names the wrong as wrong.

If we don't sort out the different elements involved in reconciliation, we are in danger of dumping impossible tasks on those involved in a conflict neither victim nor perpetrator can take all the responsibility for restoring a relationship. All they can do is carry out their own roles.

FORGIVENESS or apology can also each take place independently of each other.

resist this, not only because of the difficulty in doing either, but because they think that to forgive means letting the perpetrator off the hook. It doesn't. The relatives of the Bloody Sunday victims can decide to forgive the British army and government, whether or not the latter apologise.

In part, that means letting go of resentment. It does not necessarily mean letting go of righteous anger, which is quite different from resentment. Nor does it mean they should give up their demand for an admission of guilt by the British government.

On the contrary, the need for justice as part of reconciliation impels them to continue this demand. But for all victims it must be difficult to distinguish righteous anger from revenge, and presumably most humans will move from one to the other in the long process of reaching lasting forgiveness.

Even this brief discussion throws up yet another problem: the difficulty of using individual analogies for reconciliation in politics. Logically there can be no forgiveness without a prior judgment that a wrong has been committed. Otherwise what could forgiveness mean?

In political conflicts the task of judging wrong is much more complex. So there is a need for care in applying inter personal examples to political conflicts. There are different dynamics and needs involved in each case.

The South African Truth Commission tries to face the difficulties of reaching agreed judgments about right and wrong in political conflicts. It invites individuals to confess their crimes with a guarantee of immunity, but also with the possibility of being charged if they do not.

The argument is that it is better - much better - for victims at least to hear the crime named as a crime, even if the full course of due process is not possible. However, it is not easy to see either the British government or the IRA, to take but two examples, apologising for their abuses in our conflict.

Churches, as The Irish Times editorial pointed out, could play a much greater role in this area, at both a leadership and a local level. It was, therefore, encouraging to see Bishop Willie Walsh apologising for the harm caused to Protestant churches by the Ne Temere decree. {CORRECTION} 97021900102