PIETERMARITZBURG, South Africa
The other day, speaking to some students at the Unilever Ethics Centre at the University of Natal, I was greeted with some skepticism. I had suggested that the moral barometer was in some ways rising as well as falling. They were politely dubious.

In a sense, they were right. This is a country where crime, child abuse, HIV/AIDS, and corruption are huge issues — and where, according to census figures, nearly 99,000 households in 1996 were headed by children aged 10 to 17.

But I reminded them to take the longer view. Yes, there are problems. But last Saturday marked Year Eight of this nation’s new democracy, following the apartheid regime that officially ended on April 27, 1994. That very fact — a wholesale transformation of a culture without a shot fired — was an extraordinary moral achievement. Summing up progress since then for the average South African, the Sunday Times noted that urban home ownership has grown from 64 percent to 77 percent; that 76 percent of households now have water, compared to 68 percent in 1994; and that households with electricity have jumped from 58 percent to 80 percent — with rural household electrification leaping from 16 percent to 58 percent.

These figures, of course, only measure material progress — a point made recently by Dr. Molefe Tsele, head of the South African Council of Churches. He sees all of this as the “hardware” of a renaissance that must ultimately be brought about by the “software” of cultural and moral issues. “The African Renaissance must start from a new way of being an African so that we can address the moral deficiencies,” he told the Saturday Star.

He, too, is right. That’s why the launch last week of a new Moral Regeneration Movement (MRM) has provoked a quiet surge of hope here. Meeting in Pretoria on April 18, more than 1,000 delegates from around the nation heard South Africa’s Deputy President Jacob Zuma praise their presence as “an indication that … South Africans have high moral values, and that they are disgusted by the sporadic incidents of moral depravity” across the country. The movement’s organizers see the MRM as a way to “revive our nation’s collective morality” and to create “a confident community with a strong moral fiber.”

The movement traces its roots to a 1998 “moral summit” in Johannesburg that, under former President Nelson Mandela’s leadership, produced a “Code of Conduct for Persons in Positions of Responsibility.” This latest summit sets out in some different directions:

• Unlike previous efforts to “restore morality” here, the MRM has turned not simply to the clerical leadership in this nation of churchgoers, but to a broad spectrum of political, nonprofit, and business delegates.
• The issues facing the nation are new — either unimagined during the apartheid regime (like AIDS) or far in excess of anything known to exist during that period (like white-collar crime).
• The solutions root themselves not in varying religious or social traditions, but in a commonality of values that crosses these traditions.

That last point is significant. Movements for moral regeneration are, by nature, suspect activities. They raise skepticism about their efficacy. They raise red flags for those who see them as promoting only one particular branch of morality, such as sexual abstinence. They provoke resistance from those who fear they are imposing values on others. So the MRM has its work cut out: It must prove that it is effectual, conceptually broad, and socially inclusive.

How? By building on this point about a commonality of values. Throughout Mr. Zuma’s speech was an obbligato of concern for this point. He called for “a strong moral society based on a common code of ethics and behavior.” Explaining why he thought that could happen, he noted, “Wherever one might travel throughout the world, one would find that there is an affirmation of moral values and virtues, irrespective of the culture of a particular nation. These include values such as goodness, honor, respect, justice, and integrity, among others.”

There’s a striking congruity, here, to the findings of our Institute’s own survey research on global core values. Everywhere we turn, we’re finding a common set of values surfacing in widely differing nations. Our research typically uncovers a list of five — respect, honesty, fairness, responsibility, and compassion — that is not far from Mr. Zuma’s list.

If South Africa is like other countries, Mr. Zuma’s assertion of commonality will provoke skepticism. Can there really be a “common code of ethics and behavior”? In a nation with such divergent strands of European, Asian, and native cultures, and where eleven official languages are spoken, can such a list be found?

The next step for the MRM should be to stand back and do some basic survey research to convince the citizens that, however different they are, they all aspire to common values and virtues. Miss that point, and this movement can easily fragment into a thousand different agendas. Get it right — and make the fact of shared values sufficiently persuasive — and this movement has a real chance of setting a world-class example.

(c)2002 by the Institute for Global Ethics

“To do this is not to create a special right for gay men and lesbians, but to end discrimination against them, as we have done for others. To do less is to close our eyes to this inequity in our laws, and to give a quiet nod to discrimination in the workplace in a country that prides itself on rewarding merit and hard work.”

WASHINGTON
The U.S. government last week pledged to stiffen the penalties for companies that refuse to cooperate with civil and criminal investigations into alleged wrongdoing — a warning that follows collapsed settlement talks with indicted accounting firm Arthur Andersen.

Under investigation for alleged obstruction of justice, Andersen last week walked away from the table with government regulators probing the foundering accounting giant for shredding documents related to its handling of the bankrupt corporate pariah, Enron.

Insiders say the settlement talks broke down over disagreement regarding the extent of cooperation that Andersen would give the government, the Associated Press reported.

Last week, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) head Harvey Pitt responded by warning that the government will come down hard on companies that fail to come clean about wrongdoing.

“We reserve our harshest treatment for those kinds of companies,” Pitt said in an interview with the AP.

Pitt’s statement comes as a growing number of U.S. firms are being taken to court over alleged wrongdoing by executives, according to a recent report from the Financial Times.

Last year, shareholders filed 327 federal class-action lawsuits against U.S. companies alleging executive wrongdoing or negligent governance — a jump of 60 percent over 2000. Another 138 suits were filed over the allegedly biased distribution of IPO shares.

While corporate lawyers argue that such suits are little more than extortion, class-action lawyers contend they serve a vital purpose: catching companies involved in wrongdoing, and deterring others from similar deeds, according to the Times.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

TORONTO
The Globe & Mail is reporting that of the 36 leading companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange 100 Index that reported the details of fees paid to their auditors, 14 disclosed that 66 percent or more of such fees were for services other than the auditing of the companies’ books.

The report disclosed that one of Canada’s largest integrated oil and gas companies, Petro-Canada, paid auditor Arthur Andersen $3.2 million last year, but only $455,000 was for the auditing of its financial statements.

The rest was for consulting services and for the firm’s own internal audit. The company has recently announced that the external auditor will no longer conduct the internal audit as well.

The practice may be much wider than the number of companies disclosing details of fees given to external auditors as disclosure of such details is still voluntary.

After the Enron disaster, many investors and regulators are concerned that external auditors may not keep their objectivity if the majority of their revenues from companies are coming from non-audit-related consulting services.

LONDON
Troubled U.K. insurer Equitable Life last week announced a $4.37 billion lawsuit against 15 of the company’s former directors, accusing them of negligence that left the company exposed to devastating lawsuits.

Equitable, which fell on hard times following deep cuts in interest rates, was forced to renege on guaranteed payments to some of the company’s clients in 1999.

In 2000, the 240-year-old company began buckling under financial strain, closing its doors to new business, selling off some divisions, and fending off lawsuits from angry shareholders, reported the BBC.

Last month, Equitable filed suit against its former auditor, Ernst & Young, alleging professional negligence — a charge dismissed as “opportunism” by a company spokesperson.

Last week, Equitable spread the blame further, accusing its own board of directors of failing to seek appropriate legal advice on the company’s policies, which were subject to shifting U.K. legislation.

“The actions or inactions of these former directors caused many policyholders substantial loss of benefits. As a board we have a duty to act in our policyholders’ best interests, no matter how difficult that duty may be,” chairman Vanni Treves said.

The suit names 15 former directors who served between 1993 and 2000, many of whom are leading players in London’s financial arena, reported the Guardian.

NEW YORK
Alfred Taubman, the former head of auction firm Sotheby’s, was sentenced last week to more than one year in prison for his role in a price-fixing scheme that cheated customers of nearly $50 million over six years.

Taubman has long denied his involvement in the collusion, which federal prosecutors say ran from 1983 to 1996 between Sotheby’s and rival auction firm Christie’s.

Last week, U.S. District Judge George Daniels cited Taubman’s lack of remorse as part of the problem, reported the New York Times.

Taubman has demonstrated a “lack of contrition” and “has continued a conspiracy of denial,” Daniels said at the sentencing.

“This was a deceitful, secretive criminal scheme whose whole object and purpose was criminal profit. This was a crime motivated not by desperation and need, but by arrogance and greed,” Daniels added.

Taubman was ordered to pay a $7.5 million fine and the cost of his incarceration, and to serve 366 days in prison — a sentence that allows him to be released up to two months early if he demonstrates good behavior.

Former U.S. President Gerald Ford and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were among the people who asked Judge Daniels for leniency in the case, citing Taubman’s poor health and history of philanthropy, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Daniels gave Taubman far less jail time than the three years sought by prosecutors, but said that ordering no jail time would have sent a clear message that crime can pay.

“Regardless of what heights he has obtained in life, no one is above the law,” Daniels said.

Taubman’s former ally turned chief accuser, former Sotheby’s chief executive Diana Brooks, will be sentenced for her role in the scheme this week.

Taubman’s counterpart at Christie’s, Anthony Tennant, has refused to leave Britain to face trial for his alleged role in the conspiracy. U.K. law provides no remedy for extradition, noted the Times.

SACRAMENTO
A federal jury last week found two major oil companies liable for marketing a gasoline additive despite knowing that the product posed a severe threat to the environment and human health.

Shell Oil and Lyondell Chemical Co. (formerly Atlantic Richfield Chemical Co.) acted with “malice” when marketing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gas additive that cuts air pollution, the jury found.

MTBE, once widely used, fell out of favor after studies showed that while it cuts air pollution, it quickly contaminates ground water and acts as a probable carcinogen.

Last week, a California jury found that Shell and Lyondell knew that MTBE was a defective product, but pushed its sale nevertheless, the Sacramento Bee reported.

California regulators estimate that 6,700 gasoline storage tanks are now leaking MTBE into the state’s groundwater within a half-mile of active wells providing the public with drinking water.

Last week’s verdict marks the first time a jury has found oil companies liable for knowingly marketing a “defective product” — a technical finding that could carry hefty punitive damages.

“It was proven that the companies’ own scientists for almost a decade were saying, ‘Don’t put MTBE on the market, or you’re going to create a big environmental disaster,’” Communities for a Better Environment lawyer Richard Drury told the San Francisco Chronicle. “The companies put it out anyway. It wasn’t an innocent mistake.”

MTBE manufacturers insist that they simply made the product, and that they should not be held liable for the negligence of gas station operators who filled leaking tanks with the MTBE-laden fuel.

While that position failed its test in court, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) admits that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should shoulder some of the blame.

The EPA knew MTBE “had a high potential for polluting water,” Hall told the Bee. “They were simply willing to trade clean water for clean air.”

The jury also found against a third company, Tosco Corp., for marketing a defective product, but ruled that the company did not hide evidence of MTBE’s dangers.

Lawyers waging dozens of similar MTBE suits across the country say they expect to gain ground by using evidence and precedent from the California trial in their own court proceedings, the Chronicle reported.

WASHINGTON
Property owners who temporarily lose control of their lands because of government regulations are not automatically entitled to compensation, the Supreme Court ruled last week in a potentially far-reaching case.

The Court’s decision comes in the case of property owners around Lake Tahoe, the nation’s third-largest lake, long-hailed for its crystal blue waters that spread across the northern California-Nevada state line.

In 1981, as erosion from shoreline construction clouded the lake and damaged the environment, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) imposed a 34-month moratorium on building around the lake.

Property owners sued, accusing the government of a de facto seizing of their lands and demanding compensation, reported the Washington Post.

Last week, the Supreme Court rejected that argument, ruling that a temporary ban on building did not permanently affect property values or abrogate land owners’ rights.

A piece of property “cannot be rendered valueless by a temporary prohibition on economic use, because the property will recover value as soon as the prohibition is lifted,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court’s 6-to-3 majority.

“Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way — often in completely unanticipated ways,” Justice Stevens wrote. “Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford.”

In dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said last week’s ruling could encourage the government to use red tape to avoid paying compensation to land owners.

“There is every incentive for government to simply label any prohibition on development ‘temporary,’” wrote Rehnquist. “This initial designation does not preclude the government from repeatedly extending the ‘temporary’ prohibition into a long-term ban on all development.”

Last week’s ruling empowers the government — whether city, county, state, or federal — to take a long-term view toward protecting the environment, favoring long-range gains over short-term sacrifices, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

“Governments across the country should be very pleased with the opinion,” John Marshall, the TRPA’s legal counsel, told the Bee. “The court really confirms that there’s a societal benefit to comprehensive land-use planning.”

BRUSSELS
French presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen became the target of street demonstrations and parliamentary protests last week after his surprise upset victory in the race to lead the nation of France.

Le Pen, a member of the extreme right, bested centrist French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin to force a run-off between himself and conservative President Jacques Chirac on May 5.

French voters, a record number of whom stayed home instead of voting, took to the streets lamenting both the voter apathy that carried Le Pen to the run-off, as well as Le Pen’s isolationist and xenophobic views.

Tens of thousands of angry French people have demonstrated in the streets to show their shock at Le Pen’s newfound prominence, the Associated Press reported.

Last week, members of the European Parliament registered their own outrage, booing Le Pen when he rose to present a one-minute speech on the European Union’s Middle East policy.

Heckled by both his legislative peers and the public outside the building, Le Pen then canceled a planned press conference, complaining that “provocateurs” were upsetting the democratic process and stifling his right to express his views.

Most observers expect Le Pen to fail badly in next month’s run-off election, but note that Chirac must win overwhelming support or face a debilitating loss of mandate, according to the AP report.

LONDON
U.K. educators last week blasted the comments of Home Secretary David Blunkett, who recently accused the children of refugees and asylum seekers of “swamping” the nation’s schools.

A proposal by Blunkett recommended isolating asylum seekers’ children in segregated schools, instead of integrating them with English classmates throughout the country, the BBC reported.

Blunkett’s proposal sparked a firestorm of protest from teachers’ unions and education officials, who characterized the idea as “a form of apartheid” echoing failed segregationist policies of the past.

“In the ’60s and ’70s there were areas which attempted to teach newcomers in this way,” said Peter Smith, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. “Quite rightly, this practice is now seen as restricting learners’ access to the language they will need if they are to make an effective contribution to society.”

John Troake, head of a high school with a large percentage of refugee children, slammed Blunkett for using an “emotive term” to stir emotions and frighten the public.

“It’s not a case of taking resources away from other pupils” by “swamping” the system, Troake told the BBC, claiming that some government funds are earmarked — though at an insufficient level — for such students.

More important, Troake claimed that many schools are afraid to take children from refugee or asylum-seeking families because of rigorous testing standards being pushed by the government, whose standards are often unrealistic for children learning the English language.

“A number of schools could do more, but the trouble is we’re in an environment where targets are paramount and these children can affect that side of things,” Troake told the BBC.

Doug McAvoy, head of the National Union of Teachers, last week joined the calls for Blunkett to renounce his proposed policy, calling it an “extremely regressive proposal.”

“Asylum-seeking children are children first and asylum seekers second,” McAvoy reminded last week. “Their educational rights should be vigorously protected irrespective of immigration status.”

SAN FRANCISCO
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch last week pulled five new T-shirt designs from store shelves following a flood of complaints from Asian-American consumers, who called the designs offensive.

The shirts, featuring caricatures of Asian people with slanted eyes and conical hats, were the latest in a line of Abercrombie T-shirts to poke fun at groups of people, reported the Associated Press. Previous campaigns have included foreign waitresses and taxi drivers.

After several groups, including the Asian American Students’ Association at Stanford University, organized call-in campaigns to complain, Abercrombie last week quickly pulled the T-shirts from its 311 stores in 50 states.

“We’re very, very, very sorry,” company spokesman Hampton Carney said. “It’s never been our intention to offend anyone.”

The firm’s apology failed to satisfy some protestors, who have demanded the company publish an apology in four major newspapers, boost philanthropy and investment in the Asian community, and hire sensitivity consultants, the AP reported.

TUCSON, Arizona
The state of Arizona is pushing its police officers to remain honest, threatening decertification if they lie for any reason — a return to a bright-line stance that many say is vital to restoring trust in the force.

Since 1997, at least 33 Tucson-area officers have been disciplined for some form of lying on items ranging from time sheets to arrest reports, according to a report last week from the Arizona Daily Star.

Increasingly, Arizona police — as well as their colleagues across the country — are being pushed to stick to the truth or lose their certification to serve on the force.

The requirement is both ethical and pragmatic, former policeman Neal Trautman, who now teaches ethics, told the Daily Star. An officer proven dishonest even once can lose vital credibility when placed on the witness stand, weakening law enforcement overall, Trautman explained.

“Any time you have an officer intentionally lying, it’s never minor,” added Trautman. “And it’s a mistake to treat it that way because you encourage more of the same. Virtually without exception, all major scandals begin with an officer doing relatively small infractions.”

While the number of U.S. officers investigated for dishonesty remains low, it nevertheless ranked as the No. 1 reason officers were decertified in a study of the years 1990 through 1995, reported the Daily Star.

Special to Newsline from editor Carl Hausman

Fallout from the Enron scandal continued to impact the news in ethics this month. In this week’s edition, we lead with a warning from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Cooperate with government probes or face the government’s wrath. Also this week, we feature a story from our Canadian correspondent about a press report indicating that despite the lessons of Enron, many Canadian firms continue to receive auditing and consulting advice from the same firms. The effect of the debacle on Arthur Andersen’s attempt to merge with a Canadian firm was highlighted on Apr. 22, and allegations that Merrill Lynch acted in conflict of interest was featured in our Apr. 15 report. On Apr. 8, we also noted that press reports indicated that an Andersen executive claimed he was sidelined and silenced after attempting to alert his bosses to the growing problems at Enron, and that Xerox had agreed to a settlement with the government over alleged accounting irregularities.

Education and ethics figured prominently in several stories this month: a debate over separate schools for refugees in the United Kingdom (Apr. 29), protests in Philadelphia against turning some of the city’s worst-performing schools over to private companies (Apr. 22), and a threatened teachers’ strike in the United Kingdom over the length of the workday (Apr. 8).

Ethics and the environment was a recurring theme in April’s Newsline: A jury returned a precedent-setting verdict over pollution from a gasoline additive (Apr. 29), the Senate handed President Bush a setback in his Arctic oil drilling policy (Apr. 22), and a report from the New York Times claimed that environmentalists were largely excluded from the Bush administration’s conversations on the shape of energy policy (Apr. 1).

Health care was the subject of several articles: A federal judge upheld Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law (Apr. 22), a report claimed that the threat of malpractice suits is degrading the quality of medical care (Apr. 22), the Food and Drug Administration warned pharmacies not to concoct their own nicotine lollipops (Apr. 15), and a British woman known only as Miss B, paralyzed from an accident, won the right to have her life-support terminated (Apr. 1).

Finally, high-tech remained a staple of ethics news: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to clamp down on computer-generated “virtual” child pornography (Apr. 22), Canadian tax authorities fretted that e-commerce may become a tool for tax avoidance (Apr. 8), and video-game makers adopted a code of ethics seeking to tone down violence in the popular diversions (Apr. 01).

From the Gallup News Service:

“The Catholic religion has been under siege in the United States in recent weeks amid continuing revelations about the involvement of priests in sexual abuse cases, and the way in which the Catholic hierarchy has handled these incidents.

“American cardinals have returned from a special meeting with the pope at the Vatican to discuss the incidents and the church’s response. News coverage of the conference has focused on the church’s newly announced policy to recommend the removal of any priest who has become ‘notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory sexual abuse of minors.’

“The latest Gallup poll reveals that the image of the Catholic religion in the eyes of Americans has deteriorated over the past two years. In March 2000, a little less than two-thirds of Americans said they had a favorable opinion of the Catholic religion. Now, in a poll just completed, only about half of Americans have a favorable opinion.

“Both the current and the 2000 poll were conducted among the general population of America, which is approximately 25 percent Catholic. Analysis shows that Catholics are much more positive than others are about Catholicism, but that 17 percent of Catholics’ opinions of the Catholic religion are negative.

“While it is impossible to say that the recent scandal has been the sole cause of the shift, it almost certainly has had an impact. The current poll also shows that slightly more than a majority of Americans say sexual abuse of young people by Catholic priests is widespread. Previous polling has shown that a significant majority of Americans, including a large percentage of Catholics, say the leaders of the Catholic Church have done a bad job of handling the situation.

“The latest Gallup poll … shows that 52 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Catholic religion, while 39 percent have an unfavorable opinion. The comparable numbers from the March 17-19, 2000 Gallup poll are 64 percent favorable and 27 percent unfavorable….

“For comparison purposes, the poll also asked Americans about their opinion of ‘Protestant religions.’ (This question was not asked in the 2000 poll.) Sixty-eight percent of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the Protestant religions, while just 16 percent have an unfavorable opinion….

“The poll repeated a March 18-20 poll question asking Americans about their views of how widespread a problem sexual abuse is among Catholic priests. There has been essentially no change in this perception over the last month. In the March poll, 55 percent said abuse was widespread, and 56 percent say so today.

“Again, for comparison purposes, the poll included a question that asked respondents if they felt that sexual abuse of young people by Protestant ministers was widespread. About one-quarter of Americans — 26 percent — say that it is….

“This poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday, April 22-24, and therefore most of the interviewing was completed before the news emanating from the Vatican of the decision to remove priests who are ’serial’ offenders, but not necessarily those who are first-time offenders. The impact that the outcome of this week’s meetings will ultimately have on the attitudes of both Catholics and non-Catholics is unclear….”

Dear Mr. Kidder,

I am a masters student from British Columbia, Canada, and a high school teacher. I am also a Catholic and am watching this whole issue of children and sexual exploitation and abuse with interest. Your comment that this issue looms almost larger than life is so true and it would be a shame if the Catholic church would have to take responsibility for the totality of the problem of sexual exploitation of our young people. But you are also right when you suggest that the Catholic church has attempted to deny its duplicity and complicity by covering up allegations of abuses by its priests. Pope John Paul II may summons the U.S. cardinals to an extraordinary Vatican meeting, but it just might be too little too late.

Yours truly,
Carol DePedrina
British Columbia, Canada

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

– Upton Sinclair (U.S. writer and politician, 1878-1968)

This week, as Pope John Paul II summons U.S. cardinals to an extraordinary Vatican meeting, the headlines are red-hot with the one issue on his agenda: the sex-abuse scandal involving priests in the United States.

Can the damage be managed, even with the Pope’s intervention? Possibly not. This issue looms almost larger than life. Yet the spectacle of men in authority sexually preying on the young in their trust, while clearly repugnant, is not new. Why, then, is it spinning further out of the radius of ecclesiastical control with every new allegation? Why this massive fascination?

First, it’s not just a “Catholic problem.” Predatory sexuality targeting the young is now being exposed in Protestant organizations and non-religious groups as well. Last week, for example, the New York Times carried a story about decades of sexual abuse at the nonsectarian American Boychoir School in Princeton, New Jersey. True, some Catholic commentators have noted that their church provides particularly good cover for such activity. But the fact that it occurs elsewhere, and can involve married as well as unmarried men, suggests that one potential reform — allowing priests to marry — may not fully address the issue. The story, in other words, is big enough that even non-Catholic and non-religious citizens have an interest in it. Nor will they be apt to listen uncritically to any edicts from the Vatican.

Second, this is not just a problem of pedophilia. That fact became clearer last week through a stunning irony, as readers found church sex-abuse stories running on the same front pages with articles about a Supreme Court decision on child pornography. Citing free speech principles, the Court struck down federal laws prohibiting the creation, distribution, or possession of “virtual” child pornography made through computer imaging of young people rather than through filming real children. The Court’s decision reminds us that Congress was concerned enough about the issue that it passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act in 1996. It also reminds us that abuse by priests is but one form of a far deeper issue facing society: the growing insistence that sexuality is the defining mark of every aspect of modern culture, including the previously sequestered arena of childhood.

Third, the fundamental problem facing the Catholic church is not the presence of sexual abuse. It’s the absence of crisis management. The real issue here is not that some priests preyed on their charges. It is that bishops and others in authority knew they were doing so and covered it up. What is now unfolding is a long, sad tale of denial, deception, and deportation — shipping off known offenders to unsuspecting parishes here and overseas. Here again the problem is not new. Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton met their most crippling challenges not because of the Watergate burglaries and the Monica dalliances, but because each sought to cover up those activities. Here, too, the ire of the faithful is directed less at the pedophile priests — who can be forgiven as sick, sinful men needing human help and God’s grace — and more at a hierarchy protecting its own at the expense of generations of children.

Add these up, and something else stands out. This story fits at least three modern paradigms. It’s about a new kind of nothing-is-sacred journalism, eager to take on powerful institutions when, just 40 years ago, it dared not even mention the dangerous sexual liaisons of President Kennedy. It’s also about a common theme in today’s world: the creeping distrust of institutions, whether of government, education, religion, or even professions like accounting. And it’s about hypocrisy — St. Paul called it “spiritual wickedness in high places” — which for many people stands as the ultimate collapse of moral conscience.

The result? From a secular editor’s perspective, sadly, this is a story made in heaven. It has exactly the elements that sell papers and TV programs. It’s about sex, power, and corruption in a famous institution. It has plenty of on-the-street interviews with real people who really experienced this abuse. It fits the classic dramatic definition of tragedy, dealing with the fall of great men from high places. And, like the worst sorts of computer viruses, it’s self-replicating: The more it’s told, the more former victims find the courage to come forth with their own tales.

Don’t look for a Vatican meeting, in other words, to lay it to rest. This one won’t be going away soon. When it does, it will only be because something profound has shifted at the moral core of a church that is finally willing to talk about a problem apparently endemic to its hierarchy.

(c)2002 by the Institute for Global Ethics

“Certain congressional leaders made a good-faith effort to get through the administrative door what they could not get through the congressional door, seeking refuge with the newly appointed attorney general, whose ideology matched their views, and this is precisely what occurred.”