I usually watch only a couple of football games in a season, but since I live with a man who pays more attention, it’s impossible not to have some football news cross my radar. I’m hearing a fair amount about Michael Vick, of course, the latest was that Howie guy with the flattop and the glasses bleating about his ‘redemption.’ His basis for declaring Vick redeemed was that a) Vick is playing well and b) a “sitting president” inserted himself into the discussion. (The logic escapes me, too.)
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll agree that Vick appears to be rehabilitated. He is gainfully employed, has not offended again, at least that anybody knows, and has re-integrated into society in a way the typical ex-con could never hope to. The applicable definitions for ‘rehabilitate’ in Webster’s Dictionary are to “restore or bring to a condition of good health, ability to work, or productive activity’ and to ‘reestablish the good reputation of.’
The appropriate definitions for ‘redemption,’ on the other hand, are ‘deliverance from sin,’ and ‘atonement for guilt.’ (If the word ‘sin’ makes you uncomfortable, try substituting ‘offense against your fellow creatures,’ which is what sin is, after all. Believers simply believe it constitutes an offense against God, too.)
This is where Vick’s situation gets more complicated. I hope those who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ are just ignorant of the word’s meaning, thinking it interchangeable with ‘rehabilitated,’ rather than knowing the difference. Atonement is defined as ‘reparation for a wrong, amends.’ When it is impossible to truly repair the damage done, which is probably true in the majority of cases and is certainly true in this one—the dead and tortured dogs and bait animals can’t be brought back to life or have their suffering erased—atonement is generally understood to begin with heartfelt repentance, genuine remorse and shame for the harm caused. The only ones who know if Vick feels that are Vick himself and possibly, although not certainly, anyone very intimate with him.
The point is, playing good football and staying out of trouble doesn’t prove redemption. It only proves, assuming the latter lasts, rehabilitation. Playing good football and staying out of trouble are in Vick’s own interest; doing so is earning him millions. Pointing to it as evidence of remorse, or real change of character, is absurd.
I can’t know if Vick has undergone any real change, any more than all these sports pundits can, but my money isn’t on it. Real remorse means that if it were somehow possible for Vick to still have his dogfighting business and be guaranteed that no one would ever know and he would never get caught, he still wouldn’t do it because there was a transformation in his conscience and his consciousness. Imagine how big a change that would have to be, if you were someone who was not only capable of but, apparently, enjoyed engaging in such sickeningly sadistic behavior.
There were more than the electrocutions and drownings, which apparently seem less shocking to people the more time that passes. Vick and an associate killed one dog by swinging him by his back legs, slamming him onto the floor repeatedly until they broke his back and neck. When Vick was still in prison, I read an article about the dogs that had been rescued. One was a female who had had every tooth in her mouth removed with a pair of pliers, for the safety of the males who were mated with her. No anesthesia was used and the article remarked that some of the teeth probably required almost an hour to pry out.
I think Vick regrets doing what he did because of the steep price he paid when he got caught, not because he now sees what horrific cruelty it really was. I’ll reiterate that I can only speculate, and I could be wrong. For the sake of his own soul, I hope I am. But all these people who pronounce him ‘redeemed’ and a changed man, can’t know that, either. I wonder how many of them would put their money where their mouths are and ask Mike Vick to dog sit for a week?
