It seems that where the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin is concerned, "sorry" is the hardest word. "To err may be human but admission is not so fine" might well be writ large on his desk in Drumcondra.

His statement on Wednesday was as conditional as has become his custom in the circumstance.

When he finds himself responding to reports of less than judicious comment he has made - and frequently involving the Church of Ireland - he does so generally by drawing heavily on the wanton generosity of such little words as "if", "might", "appear" and others like "misunderstanding" and "impression".

Each lends a useful confusion and all are efficient unto their purpose of suggesting (a first cousin) that somehow, someway, somewhere, someone else is to blame, really. Though that does not appear - genuinely - ever to be his conscious intent.

Wednesday's statement, following a report of his far from flattering comments about his Church of Ireland counterpart, Archbishop Walton Empey, and his list of gripes against Trinity College, has been described as an "apology" many times since. But neither the word "apology" nor its relatives appeared anywhere in it.

The nearest similar word he used is "sorry". And that is for an erroneous impression he attributed to the newspaper report. "The report gives the impression that the new Provost (of TCD), Professor John Hegarty, was in some way involved. This is not something I said myself and it is quite inaccurate. I am sorry that such an impression should have been given," he said.

The reported paragraph in his interview from The Irish Soul:In Dialogue book followed exactly the chronological sequence as he related them of his perceived snubs by Trinity from 1985, to 1988, to 1994, before continuing, as he did, that "when the new Provost was elected I met him at the American embassy and he asked me would I accept an invitation to lunch and I said I would and I never heard anything afterwards. So if I have a certain view of Trinity I think you will understand why."

The impression he gives is that the Provost referred to is Trinity's new Provost, Prof John Hegarty. It has since emerged that he was referring to Prof Hegarty's predecessor. He is "sorry", then, for a mistake he attributed, wrongly, to someone else.

But when it came to what he said about Archbishop Empey - when, as he put it in the statement, he "might have appeared to denigrate him" - he continued "I profoundly regret if such an impression has been given" (my italics).

Such words do not however dilute the unequivocal sense of his expressed view that Archbishop Empey "wouldn't have much theological competence anyway" and that he "wouldn't be regarded as one of their (Church of Ireland) high flyers."

Last February in Rome he said he never intended to offend Church of Ireland members when he made comments criticising that church's practice of inviting all baptised Christians to receive communion.

"....when it is known that this is tantamount to an invitation to Catholics (at the service) to come to communion, that fails to respect the faith and obligations of our members, and, consequently, the cause of ecumenism," he said. He stood over the comment but had not meant to cause offence then either.

On that same occasion in Rome - of his elevation to the College of Cardinals - there was a dinner in his honour at the Irish College. No media were invited and reporters languished outside among tables laden with untouchable liqueurs ready for the guests within, while awaiting a chance to speak to the cardinal.

Then, inside, the cardinal rose and it was soon clear he was speaking without a script as he asserted passionately, "Ireland would not be Ireland without the (Catholic) Church. . .Ireland is European because of Rome," and yet there were those in Ireland who believed "the church is to be forgotten as though it never existed."

It was seen as another embarrassing outburst, so much so that when he emerged afterwards he was ushered away by minders who spontaneously ditched plans for a planned press conference when they realised the media had heard every word and were going to report it.

Next day the cardinal said his speech "wasn't for the press, you know." There wasn't a script, he said, leading reporters to believe that he felt they should not then have reported what he had said.

In 1997, during the controversy following the President, Mrs McAleese, receiving communion in Dublin's Christ Church Cathedral, he left no room for doubt at all as to who was to blame.

In a Today FM interview with Eamon Dunphy, he said it was "a sham" for Catholics to receive communion in a Protestant church. In an interview with this newspaper later he said he was "sorry for the offence. If it will help you can put it that way (my italics). I blame that offence very much on the way The Irish Times put its headline: 'Taking C of I Communion a sham, says archbishop'. That was very bad." He continued " I am very sorry that people have been offended (by The Irish Times? - my question). I wouldn't offend people deliberately."

In 1995 it was the media again who were to blame. In May of that year, interviewed by an RT╔ reporter about the Father Ivan Payne sex abuse case, he said "the diocese does not in any event or in any case pay compensation".

It later emerged he had approved a loan to Father Payne in 1993 to help him pay £30,000 in civil damages to one of his victims. As the cardinal put it in October 1995, when this emerged, "to say that we paid compensation is completely untrue. When you give somebody a loan for something, you're not yourself paying compensation".

"If (my italics) people have been misled by what I said, I most sincerely apologise, because (it was) never my intention to mislead" he said.

But the RT╔ journalist concerned should have contacted him again when this emerged, he said. And he felt he had been libelled by Prime Time. It was "quite clear that I was libelled on that programme. There may be further action taken on that," he said. But there wasn't.