Search This Blog

Saturday, 28 February 2009

Oh, Lord!

It’s a rather disturbing prospect that the head of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, the arsehole Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, could be made a lord.

When you think back to how this shite sat on evidence of child abuse, you’ll probably agree with me.

Here’s a timeline from The Times concerning how Murphy-O’Connor covered up the dirty deeds of arch perv Father Michael Hill, who kiddy-fiddled with impunity – till he was rightly slammed up for it:

2000: Investigation into the 1985 appointment of Father Michael Hill to the chaplaincy at Gatwick Airport

July 2002: Revealed that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor had ignored three letters advising that Hill was likely to reoffend

November 19: Pressure on the Cardinal to resign as Hill admits further charges of indecent assault

November 20: Catholic Church revealed as paying “hush money” to people abused by priests

November 21: Cardinal acknowledges it was a mistake to appoint Hill to Gatwick chaplaincy

November 22: Hill sentenced to five years for abuse of three more boys. The Times establishes that Catholic Church enforced secrecy clauses on the victims of paedophile priests despite denial of “hush money”

So this is the kind of man we’re talking about. He’s also defended the Führer, Pope Twatzinger, for his statement that homosexuality is on a par with destruction of the rainforests. And only recently he was bleating and whining (he must have been taking lessons from Muslims) about how giving people dignity and equality gets in the way of that great advocate of dignity and equality: religion.

The chattering media are banging on about how Murphy-O’Connor – who retires from his current post later this year – would be the first Roman Catholic bishop to sit in the Lords since the Reformation. So what?

If we didn’t have the 26 Anglican bishops who, for believing in invisible people and enjoining others to do so, get to sit in the upper house by default, such a distinction just wouldn’t matter. I’ve no objection to seeing a bishop in the House of Lords, but only one who’s got there via the usual channels. His being a bishop then would be incidental and irrelevant.

Yes, the usual channels to the upper chamber are flawed and corrupt, and peerages are influenced by flawed and corrupt politicians (can we believe otherwise when we see the sort of material that gets there?), but those channels can, in principle, be reformed. Allowing 26 bishops to sit as of right in the Lords may have made some sense in a bygone age, but such a thing now is just anachronistic lunacy.

However, back to the central subject of Cormac bloody Murphy-O’-bloody-Connor. He should not receive a peerage, and the nation – now it has been alerted to the possibility of his receiving one – should be told why. People have short memories. Let us remind them from time to time what these monsters are capable of.

No comments: