Forgiveness is in Journal

(imo) the involuntary, spontaneous dissipation of rightful anger after having been harmed maliciously or unintentionally.
Ie, forgiveness is not a virtue.
There can be virtue in earning forgiveness.

The problem with Merriam-Webster definition (or classical definition)is that it is patently absurd; “a conscious, deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you..” emphasis mine. Problem 1. Feelings are not under our direct volitional control. Feelings are information, and perception of feelings is a process of acquiring information exactly like seeing, hearing or touching. One can decide to be aware of their perceptions, or not. But one cannot change what one perceives. 2. Since feelings are not under our control, but our awareness of them is; we can choose to either be aware of the knowledge that we have perceived, or not. This is a very basic epistemological fact. The fact that reality exists, that it is objective, and that we perceive reality as it is are all things we cannot control and have no ability to change. It is how we react to the percept that is our volitional choice. Ie, we choose to be aware of the percept, or to to suppress it. To choose to suppress a percept, especially that of our own feelings, is nothing more than self manipulation. The feeling doesn’t change when it is suppressed any more than a mountain changes when it’s not looked at.
So, my definition solves these problems. It postulates that forgiveness is a result of action; specifically the action of the self to heal or prevent future harm from the aggressor. Or, by the action of the aggressor to pay reconciliation for the harm, and earn trust in his commitment to never harm in this way again.
Either way, forgiveness is a passive response.
And, just saying. But the classical definition (blaming the victim) enables sadists and abuse.