the last two paragrpahs from a recent posting…found them to be remarkably accurate. Thoughts?
Think of when a friend has done you wrong—when a person you’ve recently forgiven for something you previously thought unforgivable stops apologizing for everything he does and starts having guilt-free fun again, you begin to wonder how contrite he was to start with. In other words, even though you have forgiven him for the original sin, you can’t forgive him for forgiving himself. In this regard, forgiveness isn’t a direct exchange for an apology, but a request that the person apologizing should do so until the day he dies. Or at least until the statute of limitations runs out on remorse for the sin in question. The more dire the sin—or crime—the longer the lag time (and the more abject the required remorse) until the slate is cleared.
What does genuine, effective remorse look like? When 22 Canadians died in the Maple Leaf Foods listeriosis outbreak in 2008, CEO Michael McCain delivered one of the best public apologies in recent history, and more importantly, he kept on delivering. A year after the outbreak, even though the company’s profits had improved since the inevitable drop, McCain took out a full page ad in three Canadian daily newspapers commemorating the anniversary of the tragedy. “On behalf of our 24,000 employees,” the ad read, “we will never forget.” What McCain understood, that the two Browns likely never will, is that the only way people can put the past behind them is if you do not. The option to forget applies only to the victim, or the audience; never the perpetrator. It’s only when this equation is satisfied, as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, that “forgotten is forgiven.”
I suppose I am fortunate to have a “bad memory”…people tell me all the time how forgiving I am. LOL
the entire post can be found here: