The non-apology apology

I apologize for what I have done. I have sinned against heaven and against you and am not worthy to be called your son. God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

The Bible encourages us and reminds us to confess our sins. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. A true apology is one which sincerely admits wrongdoing and guilt on our part, and perhaps includes an expression of regret for the hurt we have caused the other person.

Politicians are good at what has become known as the non-apology apology. This is when someone’s words or actions cause offense, and the offended party demands an apology. The offender is not really sorry, but says something like “I’m so sorry that you were offended by my words. I certainly didn’t mean any harm by them. I regret that you were hurt by them.”

A classic example of this non-apology apology was issued by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) in the summer of 2005. Durbin had compared the US military responsible for guarding the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Nazis, Communists in charge of the gulag, or Pol Pot and his slaughter of Cambodians. When an apology was demanded, Durbin said, “I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support." In other words, I’m sorry that you were too stupid to understand my perfectly valid choice of historical parallel properly.

Another classic non-apology apology is when someone declares with the passive voice “Mistakes were made.” Not, “I made mistakes” or “I’m going to hold ___ accountable for his mistakes.” No personal guilt, no responsibility, no apology—no good.

Often a non-apology apology is an evasion, an attempt by an obviously guilty party to appear as if he is satisfying demands for an apology but in reality does not regret his choice of words at all. In this light, consider this weekend’s flap over Pope Benedict’s remarks, issued in the context of a scholarly presentation at the University of Regensburg on the need for tolerance and understanding among people of faith in different religious traditions.

The Pope, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine (Greek or Eastern Roman) Emperor, said the following: “The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war. He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Can you guess what the reaction has been among the practitioners of the “religion of peace?” How about this one? Report: Rome tightens pope's security after fury over Islam remarks. Or how about killing a nun? Or bombing Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches in the Middle East (notably, not Catholic)? Or Somali’s leading cleric declaring that it is every Muslim’s duty to kill anyone who insults Islam and that means that the pope should be assassinated? Or the picture that caricaturizes the Pope with his mouth filled with blood, demanding his beheading, and declaring “Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire." Just check out Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin’s blog for even more reaction from all quarters of the Muslim world.

Today, Pope Benedict issued a non-apology apology. He said “At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

What do you think? Does the Pope need to stop obfuscating and issue a real apology? Many Muslims aren’t buying it, and recognize a non-apology apology when they see one. Or should he declare that the vicious and violent reaction to the quotation prove the point, and that the real apology needs to come from another quarter, namely, from the violent and murderous jihadists?