The word "forgiveness" rarely appears in the media, and it is even more surprising when the victim kidnapped for 500 days, when asked about the death of his executioner, replies tersely to the microphones "may he rest in peace".

The brief declarations of José Antonio Ortega Lara before the death of his kidnapper Josu Uribetxebarria Bolinaga, contrast with many others that over the decades expressed resentment, desire for revenge and malice, undoubtedly understandable in the face of the flagrant injustices and violence irreparably suffered. The case of the former prison officer offers the added value of the lack of repentance, at least outwardly, of his executioner and that leads one to think that the inspirational sources of unconditional forgiveness would put an end to the dynamic, always perverse although understandable, of revenge or to the recurrent clarification: "I forgive, but I do not forget".

How does one settle a grievance status with a period? Undoubtedly, and over and above political affiliations, the Christian source for unconditional forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ who exhorts us to love our enemies, and offers the definitive testimony of his cry plenary session of the Executive Council of strength and meekness from the Cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

When in ethics or anthropology classes I end my explanations on justice by appealing to mercy or forgiveness, I perceive among student body a manifest difficulty in accepting this attitude. It seems understandable to me because righteous indignation is a natural and often necessary response to denounce and decisively confront the many injustices and outrages that are the protagonists of our times.

Forgiveness is not fashionable, and the influence of Nietzsche and the philosophies of self-affirmation, materialism or successors of idealism scorn forgiveness as cowardice or resource of the weak.

This status has moved me to seek in some authors the possibility of approaching rationally the logic of forgiveness. I have always found the contributions of Robert Spaemann and also those proposed by Romano Guardini to be enlightening.

Spaemann puts it this way: "There is the possibility for man to recognize the guilt of his own limitation, to point the (guilt) of others to his ignorance and to forgive them. There is not only justice, there is also reconciliation and forgiveness" (ROBERT SPAEMANN: "Ethics - Fundamental Questions" p. 110).

Romano Guardini thus analyzes the anthropological structure of forgiveness, emphasizing also the nuances required by the scrupulous defense of human dignity: "If damage has been done to a thing of economic value, the harm can be repaired without problem (...) On the other hand, when it is a question of man, we are dealing with the person. The evil that is done to him demands that he himself is of agreement to clean it. Because of the essence of the person is part of the dignity, its character of end in itself. It seems a paradox, since the human personality is undoubtedly something finite, but the characteristic of the human phenomenon consists precisely in the fact that it is a finite being that, nevertheless, as a person, has an absolute accent. (...) The person is not an object, but a subject, and for this reason it is not possible to 'treat' something that has been done to him as the effect caused in a thing, namely, repairing the damage or replacing what has been damaged. If the wrong done is to be made right, the person himself must intervene from his freedom" (ROMANO GUARDINI: Ética, BAC, Madrid, 1999, pp.343-344).

The theologian from Verona and professor in Munich placed the merciful attitude of forgiveness in a sovereign and magnanimous act of freedom and added: "This is what we mean when we speak of forgiveness. The phrase 'I forgive you' means: you have done me wrong; I maintain my right against you, I have to maintain it for the dignity of my person; but from my freedom I renounce to assert against you the wrong you have done to me. As far as it depends on me, it is over. Even more: everything that has happened is assumed in a new positive relationship. Things are in order" (ROMANO GUARDINI", Idem).

Perhaps here we find the explanation of the "period" that Ortega Lara declared.I always defend in the classes that forgiveness, its real possibility, dignifies justice, elevates it to a higher plane. It can be affirmed that every time we forgive, the unconditional goodness of each human person is established, and his self-confidence is restored, so that he experiences that none of his actions is irreversible. No one is indefinitely doomed to evil, even if he has erred in this or that status. He can always change the course of his life. Forgiving is like helping to rebuild oneself, it helps to recover self-esteem and changes the logic of human relationships, sometimes so hard, when they are governed by mere justice and reduced to what is strictly contractual.

Undoubtedly the deepest inspiring source can only be found in union with Jesus Christ who confers the grace to forgive, also when our interior dispositions move us to receive the forgiveness of God the Father in the Sacrament of Penance. I do not fail to offer this clue to student body when it is humanly disconcerted and offers resistance to accept its anthropological possibility.

I think that the testimony of Ortega Lara, beyond the concrete political options, together with that of others who have shown their clement attitude can contribute to a new proposal that introduces, once again, in these tense and convulsive moments, the Christian and always new logic of forgiveness. Let us recall the words of St. John Paul II on Sunday after the attack on St. Peter's place : "I pray for the brother who wounded me, whom I have sincerely forgiven".

We need more than ever that "period" to stop the spirals of violence, rancor and revenge.