Sticks and stones and words

I have had reason, in the last twenty four hours to give some thought to what constitutes an apology.

If someone causes harm either inadvertently or intentionally and wishes to make reparation they apologise. They take responsibility for their action, say they are sorry and make a commitment not to repeat the action in the future.

Closure is achieved when the person receiving the apology accepts said apology and forgives the action. This acceptance does not say the action was acceptable, just that it is forgiven.

When does the recipient accept the apology? When they can genuinely forgive the harm done to them. It may be immediately, it may take a couple of hours reflection, it may take days.

Last night I acknowledged an apology, I did not accept it as I had not finished processing all the information and I was still in the midst of my feelings; plus it was followed by the suggestion that my 'fragile heart' was the thing responsible in a large part for my hurt. A good apology does not make any excuses or shift any of the responsibility.

This morning the apology was retracted with more rage and insults directed at me, a reiteration of the original offence and a demand that I should apologise. For what? For being honest enough to admit I am not ready to forgive?

So we know what that means: the apology was worthless. It was about the giver feeling better about the offence, not about the offended party healing.

It is not true that words can never hurt. They can rend and tear, end lives, careers and cause unhappiness when used as weapons. That the blood they draw cannot be seen makes it no less vital.