What’s worse, a woeful apology or no apology whatsoever?

This topic came up in a conversation with a friend recently: what is worse, a poor, inadequate or inappropriate apology or acknowledgement, or no apology or acknowledgement whatsoever?

This got us both thinking, because out of raw experience we both knew that neither is satisfactory, neither for the transgressed person, others affected, and the relationship.  One leads you to a place where you’re faced with understanding that the person apologising has no comprehension and possibly little interest of the damage done, whilst the other leaves you in a place of having absolutely no way of reconciling the matter in terms of relational justice.

On the subject of poor, inappropriate, and inadequate apologies, and where there’s no recourse to discussion, or there’s no interest in the other person doing more reflection, the situation shows us the truth that the apology or acknowledgement is actually no apology or acknowledgement at all.  Indeed, you can make the situation a whole lot worse.  It may leave the person being apologised to feeling incredulous, mystified, perplexed.  A whole deeper realm of hurt.  It leaves the person being apologised to having to reconcile a far deeper matter.  Not only is the wrong not reconciled, but the wrong was justified and an irredeemable injustice prevails.  Such a depth of betrayal that justifies the hurt leads to trauma.

If a person can receive feedback about their woeful apology and they don’t counter it with anger, there is hope that they might go away and reflect over the matter again.  This shows humility, that they’re at least sincere enough to learn more about the impact of the transgression.

In turning to the other matter, the one that faces the situation where there’s an absolute denial of the damage done, where there is no apology or acknowledgement, is left to deal with the hurt and betrayal and injustice alone.  And very often in the situations, there is nobody to stand in the gap, nobody advocates, so the person unjustly treated must seek to reconcile an impossible situation.  This itself is a trauma.

But how could these two situations be separated?  A poor, inadequate, or inappropriate apology is no better than the denial of the matter and no apology at all.  Indeed, the former could be even worse, because what must be faced is a truth that cannot be reconciled, a truth that polarises the victim in their trauma.  But the absence of apology can also do one and the same thing.

~

Sure, there is the matter of forgiveness in both situations, because if we cannot control the situation, it’s better to forgive for our own benefit and others, than to stew in our own juices.

Forgiveness in this situation is wisdom, because it reconciles that the best and only real solution is unachievable.  Reconciliation requires two parties.  And the person who does the forgiving, who has been transgressed, is doubly vindicated, and from a faith perspective will be doubly rewarded.  This is because it is more blessed to be transgressed than to be the transgressor, and it is more blessed to own one’s fault than to deny the matter.

What other recourse is there when we have learned that the way head is forever blocked?  Acceptance of the matter is peace, whilst anger regarding the matter is continued torment.  Put like this, there’s a simple choice ahead.

This is reconciling that in forgiving the transgressor, there’s a release of the transgressed person from their anger, and there’s also the release of accountability for taking on what is not in the transgressed person’s remit to take on.

Forgiveness is a wisdom that stands back and looks philosophically at the matters of life.

Forgiveness is also a justice because, like the scales of justice, forgiveness weighs the pros and cons and always sees the tremendous cost of trauma in refusing to reconcile what, through forgiveness, can be reconciled by one party on their own.  It doesn’t require action from anyone else.

Forgiveness also ultimately takes the power away from the transgressor and puts it back in the hand of the one who had the power taken away in the first place.

~

When apologies or acknowledgements fall short, at the very least it reframes the relationship, and much of the time relationships end or boundaries are installed.  This itself is a release.  What was broken but could not or would not be fixed is left in its broken state and there is freedom in walking away.

Sometimes what complicates the matter, is the transgressor walks away into success.  And this can leave a sharp and ongoing resonance in the transgressed, especially in the case where they are scapegoated.  Whatever success a transgressor enjoys, or whatever they seem to get away with, is always short lived when truths are considered through the fullness of time.  Take a moment to walk through Psalm 37 again:

It’s far better and even blessed to be 
the transgressed than the transgressor.

A really bad apology can be worse than no apology whatsoever because you know the hurtful truth they’re operating on and you know the depth of their misunderstanding.

But the overall truth to accept is both situations are abysmal, and neither is preferable to the other.