British Prime Minister Liz Truss took the opportunity yesterday to apologize for the fiscal decisions made during her brief but controversial tenure in office. Her plans announced last month to cut taxes roiled financial markets, prompting the firing of her Chancellor of the Exchequer Friday, and replacing him with a new head of treasury who announced major changes – the media calls them “U-turns” — to the government’s fiscal policy.

In an interview with the BBC, Ms. Truss said, “I recognize we have made mistakes. I’m sorry for those mistakes.”

So far, so good. Two key elements of a good apology are taking responsibility, as indicated by use of “I”, and using the word “sorry” appropriately.

But, perhaps a little too quickly, she tried to swing the attention from the past to the future:

“But I fixed the mistakes – I’ve appointed a new chancellor; we have restored economic stability and fiscal discipline…“  A good apology includes a plan to repair the damage done, but most Britons would probably not agree that everything is “fixed” yet. It might have been better had she said that she was trying to repair the damage done, acknowledging that it may take awhile for the “mistakes” to be “fixed.” She seems to imply that appointing a new chief treasurer has “fixed” everything, but it hasn’t.

Later in the interview, she added this:

“I do want to accept responsibility and say sorry for the mistakes that have been made… We went too far and too fast; I’ve acknowledged that. I’ve put in place a new chancellor …”

Here, she violates one of the cardinal rules of good apologies: Never use passive voice. “Mistakes that have been made” is deadly to a good apology. She softens it by coupling it with accepting responsibility and saying sorry. She also offers a bit of an explanation for what happened: “we went too far, too fast.” This could be seen as an honest assessment of how she made the “mistakes.” The line in an apology between “explanation” and “excuse” is a fine one, but this sounds to me more like explanation, and helps answer the question every apology recipient wants answered: do you know what you did wrong?

In a part of the interview not shown in this clip, the reporter asks her whether this has all been “humiliating.” Being a seasoned politican, she does not answer his question, but she does offer this:

“I do think it is the mark of an honest politician who does say ‘yes, I’ve made a mistake.’ I’ve addressed that mistake. And now we need to deliver for the people…”

Public apologies are difficult, especially when the full extent of the damage done is not yet known. Kudos to PM Truss for making the effort, resulting in a pretty good apology.

The Pope completed a tour to Canada last week that included multiple expressions of apology to Native peoples for the Catholic Church’s role in their forced assimilation.

Did it help? Did his apologies “hit the mark” or were they insufficient somehow? Depends on who you ask. Many people wept in response to the Pope’s heartfelt remarks, which included saying that he was “deeply sorry” and asking for forgiveness. But he apparently did not apologize on behalf of the Catholic Church, which some listeners were hoping to hear. This may be because the Catholic Church per se cannot sin.

Institutional apologies are tricky. Pope Francis was not personally responsible for the Indigenous residential schools, and most in his audience did not actually experience them. As one survivor commented, the abusers are the ones who should be apologizing, but, “they’re all gone now.” So Pope Francis’ words meant nothing to him.

There is a special term for an institutional apology by a religious body: the “ecclesial apology.” According to Jeremy Bergen, a professor of religious studies at Conrad Grebel University College in Ontario, ecclesial apologies are relatively new, appearing for the first time only after World War II, when German Protestant churches acknowledged that they failed to oppose the Nazis adequately. In the 1990’s, church apologies increased. He has written a book about this, entitled Ecclesial Repentance: The Churches Confront Their Sinful Pasts.

Professor Graham Dodds, a political science professor at Concordia University in Montreal who researches political apologies, says timing, word choice and contrition are important elements of an effective apology.

Pope John Paul II offered many ecclesial apologies during his reign, perhaps most memorably when he tucked a note into the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, apologized to the church in Ireland for clerical abuse. Pope Francis has apologized for many church wrongs during his reign.

Apologies are challenging. They get even more complicated when they involve an institution, and when the wrongs were committed in the past, by people no longer alive. Is it worth it? Does it make sense for a pope, or any leader, to apologize for wrongs committed by his predecessors? I suspect that the popes of this century would say yes. The book of James suggests that confession brings healing (James 5:16), and that’s what these popes were trying to do. A good apology is the first step; forgiveness is another, and reconciliation may follow upon that. None of it is easy, but the price of doing nothing is high too.