I don't know if you're aware, but the British Government is thinking of awarding Cardinal O'Connor a peerage - ie a free ride into the second house of the UK Parliament. If you don't know who he is, see this link -
http://www.secularism.org.uk/murphy-...-be-given.html
What crossed my mind is why didn't either Michael Hill or Murphy O'Connor use the Bible as their defense? The Bible is conspicuously silent on the matters of child abuse. There is no 'Thou shalt not interfere with small children'.
Such silence could be seen as, if not actually condoning it, at the very least not being bothered about it. As far as the Bible is concerned, abusing small children is not a sin.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/murphy-...-be-given.html
What crossed my mind is why didn't either Michael Hill or Murphy O'Connor use the Bible as their defense? The Bible is conspicuously silent on the matters of child abuse. There is no 'Thou shalt not interfere with small children'.
Such silence could be seen as, if not actually condoning it, at the very least not being bothered about it. As far as the Bible is concerned, abusing small children is not a sin.
