Murphy-O'Connor's Law

The Times recently reported that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, presumably angry at narrowly missing out on this month’s Religious Crackpot award and determined to win the next one, has decided to launch an attack on the MPs who voted against the baseless and unhelpful reduction in the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22. He’s also been given a lengthy column in the Telegraph, which is full of vague generalities and gently anti-science twaddle.

The Times quotes him as saying

Many people on all sides of this debate agree that 200,000 abortions a year is too many

which is fair, since he did say that. My initial reaction to that quote was to think that it’s a mildly stupid thing to say, because without a change in the law, the number of abortions could fall dramatically if more people worked together to foster a new understanding and approach to relationships, responsibility and mutual support. It’s safe to assume, though, that the Times took this quote from the Telegraph’s column, where he says

There are many people of all sides of the abortion debate who yet agree that 200,000 abortions a year is far too many. Even without a change in the law, the number of abortions could fall dramatically if more people worked together to foster a new understanding and approach to relationships, responsibility and mutual support.

He’s acknowledging that we don’t need to change the law to improve abortion rates, but he wants to do it anyway, presumably for some other, less well informed reason, such as he thinks God wants him to. He goes on to say

What we are dealing with are profound ethical judgments which are informed, but not determined, by the insights of science. Our views will be shaped not only by scientific facts but also by our basic understanding of what a human life is, and also our philosophy of life (which may or may not be informed by a religious belief). Science cannot replace ethics.

This is all true, however his argument here is that his views, which are “informed” by his rampant delusions about the nature of reality, should be the law for everyone. He’s cunningly glossing over this by saying things like

The Church puts forward its teaching, but does not seek to impose its views nor indeed to tell any individual how to vote.

but we already know that that’s a lie. The very same newspaper he wrote in reported that

Peter Jennings, spokesman for the Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols, said: "I would encourage all Catholics, Christians and members of all faiths who support the value of human life to think very carefully before they put their 'x' beside a name at the next general election.

"I would have thought no member of Parliament who voted against human life deserves re-election."

Okay, so he didn’t explicitly instruct anyone, but that kind of semantic loopholing is so pathetic as to just make him look worse. Amusingly, a few days before that it also reported, quite specifically and explicitly, that Murphy-O’Connor is a raging hypocrite. And he is. We know this because his Telegraph article says

The gift which the Christian faith brings to all these discussions is a vision of humanity in which every human life has infinite value and dignity because it is made in the image and likeness of God. Whether or not we share this vision of faith, cherishing life and protecting the vulnerable, especially those who are unseen or unheard, is a central value of every society that wants to flourish.

Oh, we should “protect the vulnerable”, should we? Is that what we should be doing, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor? Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor who, in 1985, as Bishop of Arundel, allowed a known paedophile to work as a priest? (He did re-offend at his new parish.) We should “protect the vulnerable”, should we? Should we protect them even if they want to tell reporters where the man touched them?

Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor has now agreed that boys abused by the priest should receive compensation, but as part of the settlement they were required not to speak publicly about what happened.

Murphy-O’Connor is duplicitous and untrustworthy. He shouldn’t be allowed to hold a high-profile position in any organisation, much less one which considers itself a guardian of morality (however incorrectly). He certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near politicians.