Contrition, Who should be held accountable?

RECENT EVENTS on the national scene have caused the public to reflect upon the Judeo-Christian tradition that has a considerable history but does not always find itself into the everyday conversation. This has to do with the subject of contrition. The expression of words of contrition has managed to be a turning point in the national situation. Some want to know whether or not this is as it should be. Others want to know whether holding certain offices removes the option of a contrite response as a basis of consideration when solemn trust has been violated. Still others want to know whether or not the offer of forgiveness removes the option of sanction or taking disciplinary measure. Does contrition give the initiative to the contrite and take it away from those who have been the victims of the offence in determining the course of action to be taken? Does it make a difference when contrition is the last resort when one's back is against the wall? Does it matter the offence has cause incalculable damage on multiple levels? Is contrition a substitute for holding someone accountable or is it ultimately an act of accountability?

Contrition usually involves the repetition of certain words, like regret and remorse, and is also usually accompanied by a tone which is penitent and includes the statement of the willingness to make restitution. It is, however, to be noted that the contrition is not the words or the tone or the willingness to make restitution or pay compensation. It is the reality beneath the words and the tone. The measure of contrition is what accompanies the words and the tone. For example, it is possible to admit wrongdoing without admitting the wrong done. Therefore, contrition begins with an owning up and a facing up to the wrong that is done. Contrition calls wrong by its name and acknowledges its consequences. It is not a mere gesture, or worst, a strategy, but is supported by an inner coming to terms with the truth about one's action. It is followed by a repudiation of the wrong done and often also an offer to lose face and lose status and standing, even possessions, in order to undo the wrong done.

The Bible is the source of Christian theology. Stories in the Bible that demonstrate contrition usually include expressions of meekness, willingness to make restitution and to suffer personal, material loss. They always include leaving oneself at the mercy of others and of God to determine one's fate, but always within the context of pleading for mercy to be saved from the ultimate punishment.

Being accountable

Contrition involves taking responsibility for one's own action and does not leave room for one to pass judgement on the moral standing or rectitude of others. The question of moral authority or any perceived lack thereof on the part of those holding others accountable ought not to be any impediment to true contrition. Ben Carson, the great neurosurgeon, was driven to become an avid reader early in life by a mother who at the time was unable to read and write. There are parents who smoke that inculcate in their children, by deliberate action, the wrongness of smoking. The oft repeated biblical injunction, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone", when it is correctly understood, is not a charter for a free-for-all in which moral conduct is unimportant and not insisted upon. It is instead a challenge that holding others accountable must be done with humility and without a hint of arrogance and self-righteousness. The primary impact of contrition is on the contrite. It may be taken into account by others but, it does not deal with the wrong itself. Its value is that it disposes the contrite to the inner preparation necessary as precursor to the required corrective action. The contrite makes no demand for special favour or privileges. To the contrary, it is conscious of the loss of the right to ask for special favours and special privilege even when those special favours and privileges are being offered to others. Whether or not others are worthy, the contrite is aware of his/her own unworthiness.

The contrite asks to be spared the ultimate punishment on the promise to make amends and to help to steer others from moral ruin, but never sets the terms for the pardon. The contrite leaves himself in the hands and at the mercy of others. It is never up to the contrite to determine what happens to the standing, or the status, or the possession relinquished by the moral failing; it is to others guided not goaded by their own generosity of spirit to make such a determination. A judge who accepts a bribe to settle a case can recover as a human being, but has irrevocably relinquished to right to function as a judge. Contrition, therefore, is not a demand for justice; it is an appeal for mercy. It is directed to God and to those to whom one's action or inaction has caused injury. It gives the power to determine one's fate back into the hands of those who have been disempowered and disfranchised by the offence.

Those who forgive need not abandon all disciplinary action against the offender. One may need time out for reflection or to be separated from the source of the temptation. Discipline for the sake of the reform of the wrongdoer for the protection of others and the public interest is compatible with forgiveness. Discipline for the sake of upholding the moral good and standards of public morality is also compatible with forgiveness. The most significant thing to be considered in withholding discipline is the precedent that is set by withholding discipline. It is important to bear in mind that discipline is not retribution but aimed at restoration.

Contrition is neither dismissive nor fatalistic; it is soiled character reclaimed, appealing to the unsoiled character of those whose generosity of spirit can create the space for renewal and save the day.

Contrition seeks both the welfare of the contrite and the honour of the cause damaged by antecedent action of the now contrite. Always, the contrite prefers the honour of the cause before his or her own welfare.

This article is a contribution from the Caribbean Theology Forum. The contributors include, Dr Burchel Taylor, Dr Richmond Nelson, Dr Oral Thomas, Dr Roderick Hewitt, Rev Byron Chambers, Rev Ashley Smith, Rev Ernle Gordon, Rev Garnett Roper, Rev Strotrel Lowe, Dr Anna Perkins, Dr Marjorie Lewis Cooper, Rev Doreen Wynter and Rev Gary Harriot.