Outside the Beltway has a good post on what Washington Politicians mean when they say they take responsibility for some error:
Vice-President Cheney recently took full responsibility for accidentally shooting a hunting companion. Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, took full responsibility for his department1s Katrina missteps. Over the years, pronouncements such as these by prominent politicians have become commonplace in the wake of failures, oversights, and assorted misdeeds that were initially ignored or actually denied.
But there’s something rather curious about this “taking responsibility” gambit inside the Beltway. It’s become a closer, not a starting point. It’s not the prelude to a resignation, a firing, or a promise to step aside at the next election. And It’s certainly not the beginning of a penance that might include giving away the responsible party’s worldly wealth or doing social work among Guatemalan lepers.
Rather, “taking responsibility” in the rarefied realms of political Washington is currently deemed a sufficient penance and punishment in and of itself. Once an official has come forward and taken responsibility, it’s the Beltway view that it’s incumbent on everyone else to forgive and forget, and cheerfully move on to the next scandal.
OTB guest columnist Mike Silverstein attributes the Washington version to a diminished Judeo-Christian attitude. In reality Christianity has always required some version of amends. Confession, by itself, is insufficient to obtain forgiveness. Here is the relevant quote from paragraph 1459 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.[62] Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
Failure to make direct amends – if possible, - only insures that one will remain in harms way and capable of repeating the same mistake over and over again. When direct amends are not possible one should make indirect amends, i.e. do good for a third party or some other substitute action.
Washington would be a much better place, if the concept of taking responsibility were expanded along Silverstein’s lines. It’s not likely to happen. We can at least be thankful that he got an opportunity to air his views on the highly popular political blog Outside the Beltway.
Comments