The Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Walton Empey, delivered what the Irish Independent called a scathing attack on corruption and abuse in Irish life in his sermon at Christ Church Cathedral on Christmas morning, writes Dick Walsh.
The report quoted the archbishop saying that light had been shed "on the activities of citizens of this country through the various tribunals".
"What has been revealed is not a pretty sight, to put it mildly. We see there the darkness of deceit, of greed, of contempt for the rest of society."
The archbishop spoke also of child abuse - of "children who are very special to Christ whose souls have been darkened by evil men" - and of the fate suffered by asylum-seekers: "The framers of laws are not evil in themselves, but laws which lead to desperate people being asphyxiated in a container must be changed."
I make no apology for drawing attention to the archbishop's views.
In an unmistakable phrase, he points to the root of a problem which seeps through public life. Those at the top, in politics or business and especially where the two intersect, have nothing but contempt for the rest of society.
It shows in the importance they attach to their own pronouncements, in their bewilderment at any attempt to show up contradictions, in their total denial of evidence they find hard to deal with - including their own. For examples of this, all you need are transcripts of evidence solemnly given at various times by Haughey, Lowry, Burke, Lawlor and many, many more.
Not to mention the parade of leaders of business, captains of industry - plump men with short memories, expensive shirts and an apparent indifference to oaths or other declarations. (A lawyer friend in Kerry used to say that, down his way, the oath was an optional extra. Well, the oath is an optional extra everywhere now).
Indeed, while the reputations of politicians, separately and collectively, have suffered as a result of the tribunals - and casual commentaries by some in our own trade - crooks in business and finance have got away with little more than a whiff of guilt, thanks to a gagging writ here and an oily application of the old pals' act there.
And if businessmen have taken up the habits of politicians, tanglers in politics have begun to bargain as if they were in trade.
No one doubts that the next election will throw up another coalition; no one knows which one.
But some party managers and commentators are so anxious to avoid a search for compatibility between parties that they make government formation sound like a variation of the Lotto Quick Pick.
This arises in part from a reluctance among politicians to sort out their moral dilemmas. Thus, if a TD refuses to co-operate with a tribunal that he or she has helped to establish, and costs the taxpayer a fistful of money in the process, the culprit's colleagues leave it to the electorate to decide whether he or she should be returned to the Dáil.
By the same token, it appears, TDs and senators may be prepared to wait for the results of an election before deciding whether to enter a coalition with one or more partners and Independents.
They may even feel obliged to accept what others may then describe as the will of the people.
Labour in particular is vulnerable to the ignorant observer's assumption that winning and holding power is all there is to politics. As if party members had forgotten what happened in the 1990s when Labour's unprecedented success - won by sustained criticism of Fianna Fáil - was followed by a decision taken by a special conference to join Fianna Fáil in government.
As if to underline the folly of that decision, Labour may now look again at two other choices made in coalition with Fianna Fáil: one was to agree to a tax amnesty of doubtful constitutional value and of no moral value; the other was to remain in office following the breach of an agreement made on publication of the Beef Tribunal Report by Mr Justice Hamilton.
Fine Gael's refusal to enter coalition with the Democratic Left was partly responsible for the mess in 1992. And the rest of the country paid dearly for it - though some still argue that, without Albert Reynolds's contribution, the momentum towards an eventual settlement would have been lost.
In this year's election, agreement on developments in the European Union and on the achievement of a fairer, more balanced society at home is likely to be central to the contest.
It does not seem unreasonable to ask parties on all sides to say as clearly as possible where they stand and with whom.
In 1997, it may be argued, the most powerful coalition was not the most open. Indeed it did not appear in its true colours until the eve of polling when, with a swagger, the Irish Independent announced that it was payback time. Parties and commentators had better beware now.
dwalsh@irish-times.ie