Religious repentance has four aspects.

First, you must apologize for what you did that you consider wrong and you must do it—preferably—before you get accused or caught. Once that happens, it will always be difficult not to apologize because you are now in trouble.

Second, you must make reparation as far and as much as possible for any damage you have done or pain you have caused.

Third, you must have a firm determination not to repeat what you did wrong. And in order to do that, you must be ready for the next and final aspect.

Fourth, you must examine your character—if it is a personal wrong—or your system—if it is a corporate wrong—to see how and why the wrong happened and to prevent its repetition.

If any one of those aspects is missing, we are dealing not with religious repentance but with rhetorical non-apology. So, in the light of those suggested principles, take a look at some of the apologies in this week’s question. Here they are (off the internet):

(1) Don Imus: "I want to take a moment to apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, so, and we’re sorry.”

(2) Paul Wolfowitz: "I made a mistake for which I am sorry."

(3) Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone: “The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers.”

For here and now, I can only respond to their words and will only ask how they fulfill the first of those four requirements.

The first one from Don Imus certainly fulfils that first requirement. It apologizes for what he said and calls his language by some of its proper names.

The second one from Paul Wolfowitz admits only a “mistake” and not an executive decision involving a conflict of interest for which resignation or dismissal would be proper reactions.

The third one is not even an apology. If the Pope believes what he said, he should say it again. But to have (1) a representative apologize because his own words (2) “may” (3) “have sounded offensive” is not to apologize for what he said but because of how others might have taken them. The problem, in other words, is theirs not his.

Once again, if you believe what you said or did was right, you should not apologize. And, if you say, “I am sorry you were offended,” you should then repeat that you still believe in what you said or did.

The Pope’s statement is the classic contemporary example not of religious repentance but of rhetorical pseudo-apology. The Pope’s apology perfectly exemplifies the modern art of non-apologetic apology.