Taking off from Max Scheler, on whom Pope John Paul II wrote his doctoral dissertation: the "offender" has to ask not "what did I do?" or "what kind of person am I that I could do that?" but "what kind of person am I now that I am capable of doing that?"
An aggrieved party (e.g. the Rutgers team) has to feel that the offender has asked himself that, and can then take him or her seriously. Christians (and I try to be one) live between "unforgivingness" and "cheap grace."
Unforgiving? Jesus has parables denouncing the forgiven who can't forgive others. They have not caught on.
We are not to be interested in casual, public relations-related apologies. All onlookers can spot a phony who uses them.
Forgiving is great: neither party has to keep on keeping score. So it is liberating. But the forgiver has to be aware that after the mouthing of the "I'm sorry" phrase, we do not always or even often see amended lives.
One always hopes, and, therefore, takes risks.
Jesus has parables denouncing the forgiven who can't forgive others. They have not caught on.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

