Jacob Rees-Mogg – A Catholic Hero?

Comment:

Apart from making it crystal clear that it is not possible for a fully believing Catholic to play a leading role in UK politics, let alone achieve Leader of a Party and become Prime Minister – even one as “liberal” (“who am I to judge”) as Jacob Rees-Mogg – what else do we learn from this interview?  Any chance that it stiffened a few backbones, and makes us more determined than ever to act as true Confirmed  Soldiers of Jesus Christ when we are presented with opportunities to defend the moral law?

Is Jacob Rees-Mogg a “Catholic hero” as a result of his responses in the above TV interview, aired on ITV this morning?   Was he demonstrating Christian prudence with one eye on possibly entering a future leadership contest – or was this a golden opportunity missed?  

107 responses

  1. I am bitterly disappointed in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s interview. What is it about Catholics in public life, even so-called “traditionalists” like him, that they just cannot speak the truth when questioned in the media.

    He actually quoted Our Lord’s words to the woman caught in adultery – “have none of these condemned thee” but just like the modernists, he left out the next part – “Go and sin no more”.

    If a man of his “traditionalist” reputation is afraid to call sodomy a sin, then there’s no hope for us in the public square. How very disappointing.

    So, no, I don’t consider him “a Catholic hero”.

    • Michaela,

      I think you’re being a bit too hard on him. It can’t be easy in those situations where someone as hostile as Piers Morgan is barracking you.

      I do wish he’d challenged Piers when he claimed to be a Catholic but did agree with these teachings – but then maybe Rees-Mogg is too young to have been properly taught the faith himself (does anyone know his age?)

      It doesn’t mean that he is a fully knowledgeable Catholic because he attends the TLM – I think we’ve discussed that before.

      • Lily,

        “It doesn’t mean that he is a fully knowledgeable Catholic because he attends the TLM

        That is very true.

        What surprised me, is that Mr Rees-Mogg has misunderstood the Church’s teaching on sin. Of course we cannot judge people, but that means we cannot judge their souls, we can’t know their true position before God, but we can and must judge actions.

        How can someone who regularly attends the traditional Latin Mass, not know that? This is an error usually made by modernists. I’ve never known any traditional Catholic to think that we cannot say something is a sin, of itself. If he saw someone stealing his car, would he not think that this person had broken the commandment “thou shalt not steal” – and so committed a sin?

  2. I have not seen the video yet, but if its the same interview as in this linked article (I think it is) then I am disappointed with his answers.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jacob-rees-mogg-admits-he-is-completely-opposed-to-abortion-even-in-case-of-rape/ar-AArnfCv

    From the link, on abortion, he says:

    Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception.

    A good start. But he doesn’t push this home. When asked:

    If a woman is raped by a family member, you would say she had no right to have that baby aborted?

    As well as reaffirming opposition, he should have responded by asking how many aborted babies fall into that extreme category (very few, if any).

    Instead he said:

    “She would have a right under UK law. That law is not going to change but my personal opinion is life begins at the point of conception.”

    Which is ridiculous because (i) a Catholic should aim to change this horrible law and (ii) he weakens his stance by referring to his “personal opinion”, when it fact science (human embryology) clearly shows lift begins at conception.

    Asked about his views on gay ‘marriage’, he says:

    “I’m a Catholic and I take the teaching of the Catholic Church seriously.”

    OK, but when the interviewer said:

    “Well there are plenty of Catholics who support same sex marriage.”

    He should have responded that people who dissent from Catholic teaching are not Catholics.

    And with the inevitable:

    Do you think that gay sex is a sin

    He should have first have pointed out that what homosexuals do isn’t “sex” (because sex = sexual intercourse = 2 people joining their sex organs, which only a man and woman can do) and that they only call it sex to try to make it sound normal.

    He should have said yes it is a sin. But instead he weakly says:

    it is quite clearly not for me to judge

    And makes a fool of himself in the process, because previously he said that he takes the teaching of the Church seriously. Obviously only when it suits.

    He should have also asked why:

    (i) any non-Catholic should care if he thinks sodomy is a sin or not, and

    (ii) why only Christian (never Muslim) MPs are grilled on their views on homosexuality

    • Gabriel Syme,

      The same video is not on the link you give. The video in the intro is the whole clip, about 6 minutes long, so well worth watching through.

      You are right to ask why only Christian and never Muslim MPs are grilled on their views on homosexuality, even though Muslims have the grizzliest punishments for homosexuals. It’s blatant anti-Catholic discrimination, as usual.

      I agree that Jacob Rees-Mogg was disappointing on this occasion. I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t see the original interview this morning, just the video on this page, but he is usually so clear and to the point when I’ve seen him on TV or heard him on the radio, that this was a huge disappointment. I’ve really only seen him interviewed on Brexit and he is always excellent, so this is a big let-down.

  3. I guess there are some positives to take from this interview. Jacob Rees-Mogg stated clearly that he disagreed with same-sex “marriage” and abortion, in all circumstances.

    However, the essence of his reply was, “I believe these things but they are private beliefs. I have no intention of promoting these beliefs. You have nothing to fear from me. I am no threat.” What he should have said was this:

    “A civilised nation’s laws must always reflect the laws of God and His Church. Same-sex “marriage” and abortion are wrong, not just for Catholics, but for everyone. Therefore, it is my duty as a Catholic to do everything I can to ensure that the law of the land reflects the laws of God. If you don’t like that, vote for somebody else.”

    Let’s face it, Jacob Rees-Mogg will never be Prime Minister. Therefore, what has he got to lose? He should have used the opportunity to be a standard bearer for Christ and His Church. I think many people will think he DID do this, but in my view, a standard bearer for Christ puts Christ first. You can never compromise with the forces of darkness or give up any ground in this moral batte. I don’t accept for one minute this was him being prudent. I think he was making it very clear that he won’t be pursuing a Catholic agenda. Disappointing.

    • I would also have said that it is the duty of a Prime Minister to defend the most vulnerable in society. There are none more vulnerable than the unborn!

  4. I emailed Jacob-Rees Mogg a short while ago, as follows (if others do the same, include your postal address because he replies by letter, not email and so I had to resend my message on receipt of his automated reply) His email address is jacob.reesmogg.mp@parliament.uk

    Dear Mr Rees-Mogg,

    I was very disappointed in your responses to the questions put to you on ITV this morning. I know that, like myself, you attend the Traditional Latin Mass and so I was taken aback to witness your unwillingness to define homosexual behaviour as a grave sin, one which the first Christians said “called to Heaven for vengeance”. You rightly stood firm on abortion – an evil in all circumstances – but may I suggest that you do not allow yourself to be tricked into referring to these moral issues as “Catholic teaching” – that is merely a short form because the Church (as you know) hasn’t invented the moral law – the natural moral law was created by God and it is the Church’s duty merely to uphold, defend and proclaim it.

    Anyway, I thought I would let you know that we are now discussing your interview on our blog at Catholic Truth http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/

    The above link is to our website where we are running a poll on the subject, but if you click on the headline containing your name (top of the list today) you will reach the blog discussion, just newly launched, which you may wish to follow.

    I know these interviews are not easy, and I am pleased, of course, that you did uphold the moral law, but next time you quote Our Lord’s words to the woman caught in adultery refusing to condemn her, remember to quote his final words in the same meeting: “Go and sin no more”!

    God bless you.
    signed
    Editor
    Catholic Truth

  5. There’s something that I wish that I had included in my email to Jacob Rees-Mogg and it is this:

    Catholic Social Teaching requires that Christ be the Head of every nation under Heaven.

    Thus, it is just not possible to compartmentalise the Faith as something “private”.

    Obviously, it may not be possible for a Catholic Prime Minister to overturn evil legislation overnight, but he should never give the impression that this evil legislation is acceptable just because a majority of the population (apparently) approve it. It’s about right and wrong, it’s about what GOD approves.

    We need to pray for the grace for Jacob to come to a full grasp of this truth.

    If anyone else emails him, I hope you will say the above in some way, shape or form.

    • Helen,

      At no time, did St Thomas More ever give the impression that adultery was acceptable. Never. Jacob Rees-Mogg allowed viewers to conclude that there cannot be much wrong with “same sex marriage” if even a traditional Catholic Prime Minister would not challenge it. That’s not prudence.

  6. I have just telephoned and emailed ITV to express my concern that no fully believing Catholic may ever become Prime Minister, and to challenge Piers Morgan’s claim to be a Catholic. Not by definition, I wrote. I copied Jacob-Rees Mogg into my email. At least he’ll be able to claim having received many emails about this – all from me! I sent one using the form on his website, another from Outlook, then another with my address, having received an automated reply saying he only replies by letter. Now this one, copying him into my email to ITV. I’d better cool it now, or I’ll be accused of stalking/harassment 😀

    For those who wish to contact ITV, communication details follow:

    Telephone 0344 88 14150 (option four)

    Email – viewerservices@itv.com

  7. Well, Jacob Rees-Mogg WAS my hero before this interview. How disappointing.

    I voted “weak” in the poll because I think he would still be able to make a difference as Prime Minister, just by people knowing what he believes about abortion and same sex marriage. Also, he’s first class on Brexit, so I’d still like to see him stand for leader of his party and maybe get to be PM.

    • Lily,

      He IS first class on Brexit – no question about it, and that’s because he gets right to the heart of the matter and can dismiss the remoaners’ non-arguments in a no-nonsense sentence. He needs to learn to do the same thing with these moral issues.

  8. Piers Morgan is a bully. He bullies everyone who doesn’t agree with him. I do wish Jacob RM could have been a bit stronger,and been better prepared for a grilling on his religious beliefs, but he did as well as any other politician in the same situation would have done. Tim Farron just refused to answer the question!

    What I wish these politicians would realise is that, they are feared and hated for their beliefs, anyway, so actually speaking out and defending them won’t make things worse. If anything it would help. God is never outdone in generosity. If Jacob RM speaks out without fear or apology, God will reward him in this life as well as in the next.

    • Richie,

      I agree, totally, about Piers Morgan – he is a bully, big time. The young American Ben Shapiro completely destroyed him on TV over there, on the subject of gun control and Piers did not know how to handle it. Priceless. Take a look…

      The only way to deal with a bully is head-on. Piers Morgan gets away with bullying because the bullied let him get away with it. Well done, Ben Shapiro for standing up to him.

      Your concluding remarks are right on the button. Well said.

  9. I think we have to accept that under the awful circumstances that Catholic politicians have to operate under, he did a darned good job. It is very easy for us to nit-pick at his answers. Just remember that he was steadfast in his refusal to be drawn into their trap of getting him to condemn particular sections of society. That is exactly what these idiots want. They just want the one line that they can cut and paste and then it’s all over: another good Catholic politician consigned to the scrapheap of no influence.
    I for one take my hat off to Jacob Rees-Mogg. Well done Sir, you used Prudence.

    • Summa,

      With respect, you appear to be making the same mistake as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

      To condemn the sin, is not to condemn the sinner(s). It is perfectly possible, with thoughtful preparation, to explain the difference.

      After all, taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that we cannot “condemn particular sections of society” would mean we need to close down the police and court system. Of COURSE we must judge people’s actions and he, as a legislator, should know that.

      What we must not judge is the state of their souls, their standing before God, EXCEPT objectively. We can certainly point out that objectively this or that is a very grave offence against God, but God alone sees the heart and soul, and HE will be the final judge, as He will be the final judge for every robber, rapist and murderer on the planet. Doesn’t mean that we (including Jacob Rees-Mogg, I’m sure) can’t condemn robbery, rape and murder. So, no, not prudence. Not in my humble opinion.

      After all, his “prudence” didn’t pay off. I’ve just been watching a very small part of the press review on Sky News with the insufferable Stig Abell (strange name, strange man) who completely slaughtered Rees-Mogg, using today’s interview as a huge stick with which to beat him (and the Catholic Church) viciously. and I do mean “viciously” – he (and the other reviewer plus presenter) openly mocked the names of some of Jacob’s children who are all named after saints. Frankly, if this vicious attack on Rees-Mogg and the Catholic Church doesn’t rank as a “hate crime”, what does? O, I know. Any criticism of Islam.

      I only saw that part of the press review where Stig whatsisname was “discussing” the front page of the Metro headline about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s “extremist” views. He was so nasty about Jacob and utterly intolerant of Catholicism, outraged that anyone could oppose abortion, that I couldn’t watch another second, switched off. I couldn’t stand the sheer delight that swept the studio as Stig Abell spoke, so I set about Googling to find an email address for him in the hope of being able to express my anything-but-polite opinion of him, but without success. It’s infuriating that these shallow people are given air time on national TV to spout their ignorance on every topic under the sun, and there’s no way those of us having their rubbish foisted upon us, can fight back.

      In summary, I disagree that Jacob Rees-Mogg showed the virtue of Christian prudence. He clearly didn’t want to offend anyone – but that’s not “prudence”; that’s being a politician!

      • Then we must agree to disagree. I thought he took the sensible and prudent approach to hostile questioning. Our Lord shows us in the Gospels that there are times when rather than directly answering the enemies who would entrap Him, He used Prudence as a lesson for us to profit from, when dealing with our own enemies.

        I don’t know anything about the other comments concerning the attacks on JRM , only to say that these people hate Catholics anyway, and their cowardliness is manifest for all to see. Would they for instance lambast a Muslim for calling his son Mohammed?

        If we had more politicians like JRM the country would be far better off.

        • Summa,

          With the best will in the world, I can’t see how Jacob Rees-Mogg “entrapped” his enemies – Piers Morgan. He simply refused to call sodomy a sin. Just as did the leader of the Liberal Democrats, an evangelical Protestant, and he was forced to resign anyway, just for being – in the past – of the opinion that sodomy is a sin. In other words, he’d nothing to lose by speaking the truth. They got rid of him anyway, and now he must be in bad conscience.

          I am, of course, pleased that Jacob Rees-Mogg did some good, but I can’t see Our Lord being so “prudent” as to assure an audience that grave sins will remain on the statute book unchallenged. Donald Trump was clear that Planned Parenthood would be defunded – and he still got elected President. It’s a mistake to think that the truths of the Faith and Morals must be camouflaged in order to get elected. I believe those polls which have shown a decline in approval of abortion, and the majority have never been in favour of same-sex marriage (two consultation processes proved that in Scotland, where the majority voted against).

          Anyway, I agree to disagree on “prudence”, but agree that we could use more politicians like Jacob Rees-Mogg – at least until after Brexit! He’s first class on Brexit!

          • Ed, I was saying that they were trying to entrap Jacob Rees Mogg. All these media mudrakers need is a piece of clipped and edited speech to get the headline they want. JRM did not fall for it.

            • Of course they were, Summa, and he should have been better prepared. After seeing what they did to Tim Farron, he should have been ready to say that yes, sodomy is a sin and the Church didn’t invent the moral order, merely guards, defends and proclaims it. A few short factual words like that, would take them off guard and perhaps, who knows, make them think. Saying what he did “who am I to judge” and so on, is to prevaricate. Our Lord said we are to answer yes or no. Everything else comes from the devil. Couldn’t be clearer.

                • Petrus,

                  It reveals that my initial assessment of JRM was correct; he’s very good on Brexit – and up to a point on abortion – but that’s about it.

                  He seems to be quite indifferent to the plight of the poor, dismissing the idea of empathy with them, and he was full of praise for the former Chancellor. Anyone who thinks highly of Osborne in his former role as chancellor, (with, as the interviewer described it “a telephone number salary”) – a man who never gave a toss about the poor – has some way to go before he is entitled to be regarded as a Catholic hero.

                  Not in my book – and checking the Gospels – not in certain other books either.

                • Petrus

                  Thanks for posting this video. JRM is a nice man but not the stuff martyrs are made of. Although he’s touted as a Traditional Catholic his understanding of the distinction between judging sin and sinners is as confused as his belief that his attendance at a “gay marriage” would be ok with God. It’s sad, but JRM is really just another example of how Modernism has neutralised the truth, albeit while apparently upholding the truth. Strange inversion!

                  • Athanasius,

                    Correct, unfortunately.

                    I forgot to mention his weakness in the matter of “gay” weddings – that’s a huge let-down.

                    He’s obviously too young to have been taught the Faith, hence his half-baked understanding of “do not judge”, while quoting “what doth it profit…”

                    One very confused Catholic – Like Joanna Bogle; seems to go with having a posh voice! 😀

                    • Editor

                      It just demonstrates again that the Modernist confusion in Catholics is not just a problem for the Church at the level of the great unwashed! Posh people are also clueless.

                      But you’re right, JRM is too young to know the teaching of the Church and how it must be applied in civil society. Democracy (the myth that people are free, not least to break the Commandments of God) seems to be JRM’s slightly preferred religion when push comes to shove. He’ll learn one day that the voice of the people is not always the voice of God. In fact, it rarely is.

                    • What is worrying, though, Athanasius, is that he has received emails from bloggers here, pointing out the true relationship between the Church and the Moral Law, so if he’s read those, and continues in his error, I will not be best pleased, to put it mildly!

                      And what kind of Traditional Latin Mass is he attending that he doesn’t know the above? I mean, about the Church & Moral Law, not our bloggers’ emails!

                    • Editor

                      To my past disappointment I have learned that Mr. Rees Mogg generally does not respond to correspondence. I had hoped he might respond on this occasion, however, given the gravity of the discussion, but it seems not. Signs of the times, I’m afraid.

    • Wendy Walker,

      That’s a great article – thanks for posting it. I completely agree with the author about the difference it would make if the bishops would come out and speak up in support of Rees-Mogg but they won’t. Our Lady said at Quito that when marriage was under attack in the 20th century, “the one who should speak out will fall silent” (I think that’s verbatim) and who is “the one” if not the bishop of the diocese and the pope.

      I take issue only with this idea of “personal beliefs”

      “He clearly draws a line between personal beliefs and Parliamentary policy, demonstrating his integrity.”

      I agree with editor that we need to make clear that calling homosexuality a sin is not a personal belief but is God’s law.

      Apart from that, I thought the article was excellent. Thank for posting it.

  10. I have been amazed at the number of people who hate Rees-Mogg and especially one politics blog where I saw him described as “a nasty man”.

    I really don’t know much about him and hadn’t heard anything about his politics until he was interviewed on TV over Brexit and now here, so is there any reason why he would be thought “nasty”?

  11. If there are any Catholic UK politicians or other Catholic public figures reading this blog who have to descend into the shark tank from time to time, to face leftist demagogues and anti-Christian bigots masquerading as reporters, I’d like to offer some ammunition.

    Next time you are in this situation, ask your interrogators this:

    The mission of the Catholic Church is to shepherd souls to Heaven, to enjoy eternal happiness with their Creator. What is the mission of those who describe this as “hate’?

  12. It is shocking that Mr Rees-Moggs views are being described as “abhorrent” in some quarters.

    It shows how empty secular values are, that to respect human life at its most innocent and vulnerable is described so. It shows how sick and twisted popular thinking has become in the secular UK (and elsewhere).

    I often wonder what people of my Grandfathers generation – who gave their youth to defeat Nazi Germany – must think of the modern UK, where Nazi / eugenicist thinking has triumphed despite the sacrifice and victory of a previous generation.

    Pro-abortion arguments are built on two major lies: (i) that the law grants women a “right to choose” to kill her unborn child (it doesn’t, the abortion law – although still wrong – was meant to permit abortion only when the mothers life may be at severe risk. it was envisioned to be a rare and strictly controlled procedure. ) and (ii) that a newly conceived life is just a “clump of cells” when in fact we can prove it is a human life, thanks to the science of human embryology.

    Most secular people are wholly ignorant of these things and so it is very frustrating to see uninformed oafs portray themselves as virtuous for attacking Catholic morality. They would believe anything celebrities or the TV tell them, and they swallow bogus arguments like they are going out of fashion.

    • Common tactics are to redefine what it means to
      (1) cause harm
      (2) be human

      Thus, one can harm his neighbor by corrupting his soul, but being an interior matter, the anti-life secular materialists pay it no mind.

      Or again, one can define a human as something less than human, or even not human. Americans of previous century did it with native Indians and enslaved blacks. The Deutchlanders were guilty in the 1930s and 1940s. And today’s anti-life secular materialists pretend a child in the womb either is not a human, or is a human who doesn’t matter.

      And yes, I did just compare slave holders, mass murderers, and anti-life secular materialists.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I recall a few short years ago, a BBC documentary (a Panorama Special, I think) which featured doctors who – at that time – were increasingly struggling with their consciences about providing abortions.

      Some of them said they were particularly troubled when asked to perform a later abortion. They were surprisingly open – I can’t recall all the details and I’ve not been able to find it on YouTube but I do wonder if those conscience-stricken doctors stopped performing abortions or simply squashed their consciences and continued as before.

  13. I have to say I was impressed with the video of Jacob Rees-Mogg on GMB.

    I take the point that he could have been more ready to say homosexual actions were a sin, but if nothing else, the interview was worth it to hear him say this:

    “It’s all very well to say we live in a multicultural country… until you’re a Christian, until you hold the traditional views of the Catholic Church, and that seems to me fundamentally wrong,” he said.
    “People are entitled to hold these views.”

    That was quoted on the BBC website just an hour or two ago, so he has stirred it up and the pot is kept boiling, so that is good. It’s so true that the media clamp down on any expression of Christianity and especially anything to do with the Catholic Church, so the fact that Rees-Mogg got that across, makes it well worthwhile. Well done, Mr Rees-Mogg.

    • I agree with you Nicky. And even more with those bloggers who wonder where is the voice of our bishops in all this. Wouldn’t it be completely wonderful if the Cardinal put his head over the parapet in support of JRM? It is so true thatmulticulturism, so called, does not extend to listening to the Christian and especially Catholic viewpoint. I don’t think an interviewer would even bother to quiz a Muslim on his opinions on moral issues so why must they always hone in on Catholic interviewees? It was at least refreshing to hear a Catholic layman stand up for his right to believe in the teaching of the Church even if he did not go quite as far as we might have liked.

      • Elizabeth & Nicky,

        Well said.

        Piers Morgan is seen in the video clip below, insulting another gentleman, for daring to say the unsayable about same sex attraction – that nobody is “born gay” – bigotry writ large, in the Gospel According to Piers Morgan.

        Voice of Justice UK is hosting a petition aimed at ending the bullying in which Piers Morgan routinely indulges – I’ve just signed it here and recommend it to all our bloggers. To sign, click here

        I have to say, the subject of Morgan’s insults, Mike Davidson, remained calm and dignified throughout the disgracefully insulting “interview” while the one deserving of the label “bigot” shone through, to anyone with eyes to see, as being Piers Morgan, who actually told Dr Davidson to “shut up” at the end of the piece. Susanna Reid, co-presenter, looked wide-eyed, presumably not comfortable with such rudeness but I’ve seen her do this before; perhaps time she told Morgan to “shut up” rather than sit there passively like the complicit little woman so detested by the daft feminists in our midst. Anyway, I hope you will all sign the petition.

  14. Jacob Rees-Mogg may not have said precisely what some people would have liked him to say, may not have gone as far as some people would have liked him to but he at least stood his ground, to a large degree, and calmly and intelligently defended his position. We can see how successful he was by the rage rained down upon him by the secular media (there is a particularly disgusting cartoon in The Times mocking JRM) for saying the unsayable.

    He may not have got it absolutely perfect but he showed more courage than Farron and he doesn’t need shot at by his own side at this moment in time! I think he should be supported as he sticks his head above the parapet rather than pointed out where he went wrong. There will be a time for that.

    • William,

      When will that time be?

      Did you read the article by Dr Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society? Do you see why nobody is “shooting Jacob Rees-Mogg down” – we are all happy that he did something to challenge the anti-Catholic bigotry, but it’s important – given that these issues will be raised with him over and over again now – that he realises that his core argument is not right. Personally, from watching him on TV in debates – especially on Brexit – and seeing him stand his ground, as you rightly say, against Piers Morgan’s bigotry, I think he is a humble man who will appreciate our concerns that we ALL (himself included) get it absolutely right when defending the natural moral law against the current secular onslaught.

      • I don’t know when that time is, Editor. I have known people who have taken the Christian fight, as it were, into the public domain and one of the most disheartening aspects for them was that their own side were quick to criticise them too. I’m loathe to be too harsh on JRM but I take your point that he could have argued his case better. Perhaps he needs to refine his arguments and this needs to be encouraged in as charitable and loving manner as possible. I don’t doubt that you and others are trying to do so.

    • Petrus,

      HUGELY disappointing. I couldn’t believe what I was reading – he’d actually attend a “gay wedding”? Prudence my foot.

      The article concluded with these words on abortion:

      “These are my beliefs, but before I was born the legislation on abortion was settled. It’s not going to be unsettled by me now.”

      Realising that he was born AFTER 1967 (Abortion Act) and thus, after Vatican II, it’s a near miracle that he found his way to the TLM, but it explains his ambivalent attitude to so many things and his readiness to mimic the Pope’s “who am I to judge?” (which is a total distortion of the Gospel exhortation, of course.)

      What is also highlighted here, of course, is exactly what our SSPX Prior said just before he left for his new appointment in England: yes, it’s good that there are priests now offering the Traditional Latin Mass under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, ditto the other traditional Orders such as the FSSP and ICTK. But the only place we will find the full Catholic Faith expressed and taught, is in the SSPX chapels. If nothing else, the Jacob Rees-Mogg and subsequent newspaper reports have underlined that fact.

      Thank you for posting that link – very disappointing, but it’s always best to be as fully informed as possible.

    • Petrus

      Thank you for posting the interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg at trib.al. As editor says, this is very disappointing and it kills off once and for all any notion that JRM is a Catholic hero. By saying that he would attend a “gay marriage” because it is “legal” is to place the secular law above the divine law. By adding (in Latin) that the voice of the people is the voice of God, the common fundamental error of democracy and a back door to moral relativism, i.e., if it’s fashionable and the people want it then it must be approved, he shows himself to be very much opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

      When he says “who am I to judge” he echoes Pope Francis, and Pope Francis was dead wrong. The question was “do you consider homosexualy (meaning the practice) to be a sin”, not “do you condemn homosexual persons”.

      JRM like Pope Francis is very astute and understood the question perfectly, but he, like the Pope, knows well that if he answers clearly and unambiguously that homosexual practice is a sin then his career is literally at an end. It seems he does not wish to make that sacrifice and so he answers subjectively as though the question were about people instead of an objectively sinful practice. Classic politicial manouvre but sadly to the great detriment of divine truth.

      It reminds me of a statement made by Archbishop Lefebvre, who summed up the present cowardice thus: “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the truth, now they sacrifice the truth”. No, JRM is no Catholic hero!

      • I forgot to point out that the secular law should always follow from the divine law if it is to be just and valid. Should it depart from the divine law, such as in the modern cases of abortion and homosexuality, then it has become an unjust and illicit imposition pandering to emotionalism and based on the false principle that man’s voice is greater than God’s. No power on earth has the right to subjugate the divine law. We have seen historical examples of it in the past and it always ends very badly.

  15. Jacob Mogg is a hero, and I felt on fire after seeing this interview!! He was put on the spot, is not a trained Catholic apologist, and was incredibly self-controlled and courageous. Let’s support him, pray for him, and be inspired by his courage.

    • Alice,

      A “Catholic hero” who would attend a “gay” wedding? Seriously?

      If you were “on fire” after that interview (and I’ve heard from priests who say the same – interestingly, priests who think we’re extremists, at Catholic Truth!) then just think how you would feel were you to hear a Catholic in public office express the true and full moral teaching, explain that not only he, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is bound by the natural moral law, which is essentially God’s Law, but everyone – “you Piers, you Susanna – everyone”. As it is, Catholics are “on fire” because they’ve fallen for the line that only Catholics are bound to be opposed to abortion and opposed – yes opposed – to all unnatural sexual activity, not because the Catholic Church says so, but because these things are immoral, real evils, notwithstanding the fact that, yes, we are not permitted to judge the souls of those who participate in such evil. We don’t know and can’t read their hearts and souls – but God can and will, at their judgment. All we may and should judge, are people’s words and actions. That is not only permitted, but a duty. Otherwise, we’d be turning a blind eye to all sorts of criminal activity, on the basis of “who am I to judge”? On the basis of a million other scriptural exhortations, we MUST judge words and actions.

      In a limited way, Jacob Rees-Mogg did some good. A faint voice was heard in the wilderness. However, it’s a measure of the state of the Church and of de-sensitised consciences when Catholics are thrilled to bits with a limited defence of morality, such as that delivered in the Piers Morgan interview.

      And now, in newspaper interviews such as the one posted by Petrus above, we find Mr Rees-Mogg back-tracking to the point where he would attend a “gay” wedding – and seems to have been having second thoughts about the more difficult “hard” cases of abortion.

      We continue to await a contemporary Catholic “hero” of the calibre of the medieval martyrs. We’ve a way to go yet, methinks, with much regret.

  16. Hi editor,
    thanks, I take a lot of your points – I think the responses to this interview from many quarters show how rarely Catholic voices are heard – to the point that they are called ‘extreme’, when someone has the courage to do what they can to express them. What I take from all this, is that we must all be encouraged as Catholics to speak out and voice our beliefs far more, and far more often in the public sphere! In this way, they will not sound so unusual or extreme. And Jacob Rees Mogg’s comments are a cracking start – sure they aren’t perfect – but a cracking start!
    God bless!

  17. JRM perhaps made the best comments he could. That he responded to a typical ambush is something. However, it has become a common trick for people to be brought onto talk shows in order to be asked a question that they are not expecting. The purpose is to embarass and entertain not to elicit enlightenment. JRM is well aware of this and appears on shows, I think, as much for his own amusement as anyone else’s.
    This is not the beginning of a more vocal Catholic presence in the media, promoting the moral law, decency and orthodox Christianity. It is a sign of the end. That it has been greeted with such a degree of attention is a clue. Fifty, even forty years ago it would have passed unnoticed, as the country was still broadly and unopposedly Christian and it was not necessary to rein back on orthodox opinions in order not to cause “offence” to a multitude of multicultural atheists who loathed everything our civilisation stands for, as is the case now.
    Our Bishops have seen the light and wisely stay in their boxes, as quiet as the church mice they so closely resemble.
    Our notion of Armaggedon is one of soldiers contesting the ground in a field, perhaps wearing armour and flying colourful banners. It is not one of the enemy slipping onto our shores at night, armed with mobile phones, taking over our cities by stealth and striking out at our children by raping and bombing.

    • Get me on Piers Morgan’s show and I would make mince meat of him. HE would be the one feeling overwhelmed and ambushed! In fact, I’ve tweeted him and volunteered to go on his show to defend the moral law.

      Jacob Rees-Mogg is a politician, for goodness sake! He should be used to being put on the spot and being blind sided. Let’s not make too many excuses for him!

      • Petrus,

        Good for you! Tweet him again and say you would be representing an organisation accused of being “homophobic” – even in line for the Stonewall Bigot of the Year award in recent years. Assure him that you will not disappoint his audience – if it’s ratings they’re after, they’ll sure get them after your appearance! I hope he takes the bait!

  18. As far as I’m personally concerned, this is very much the beginning of a more vocal Catholic presence in the media! Come on, let’s rise up, rise up! If God is for us, who can be against us?
    Christ is our strong deliverer, mighty warrior, our strength and our song. What a privelege to live in the ‘end times’ – hard, but exciting – we’re called to be signs of contradiction – let’s go for it!

    • Alice,

      We’ve been trying to get Catholics to “rise up” for what seems like centuries, and all we get is accused of being extremists. We “rose up” a long time ago. Your turn!

      You can begin by contacting the TV show directly to object to the way Piers Morgan accuses everyone of bigotry just because they oppose his PC views:

      Contact details to help you “rise up”!

      Email: gmb@itv.com

      Telephone: 034488 14150, option 1 (lines open from 6.00am-10.00pm)

      Don’t forget to come back here and let us know what sort of response you get…

      When I emailed ITV using the viewer’s email address given online, they wrote back with thanks blah blah but included the above information. I have since sent an email to the gmb@itv.com address, marked For the Attention of Piers Morgan. Text below, in case it helps kick start your own message, as you “rise up” in defence of God’s moral law…

      FOR THE ATTENTION OF PIERS MORGAN

      Dear Mr Morgan,

      We’ve been blogging at Catholic Truth about your interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, who, disappointingly, gave the impression that abortion and homosexual activity are wrong because the Catholic Church teaches that they are wrong. WRONG! The Catholic Church teaches that these (and other moral evils) are wrong, BECAUSE they are wrong. They go against the natural moral law. It is the Church’s duty to uphold, defend and proclaim that moral law, designed by God for our health and well-being. Tell me, when was the last time you met a person diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease who lives a fully Catholic life, adhering to the natural moral law. That’s right – never.

      However, the real reason I am emailing you right now is to ask you to stop barracking people on your show. Bullying is never attractive. Of course, you don’t barrack or bully those who adhere to the NEW order of things, the licentious, the permissive, the sexually aberrant. They’re fine and allowed to spread their evil propaganda, with your benign help. Your mild interviews with “transgenders” stands as clear testimony to your unfailing political correctness. But anyone remotely espousing the moral law, especially by adhering to Catholicism, are given short shrift by you.

      I notice, though, that you never miss an opportunity to claim to be a Catholic yourself. You are not: by definition, you are not a Catholic. Deny a single dogma of the Faith or moral precept, and we automatically place ourselves outside the Church. So the “I’m a Catholic but I don’t agree with this or that teaching” brigade, are Catholics in name only – and it will mean nothing at your judgment – except, be warned, a huge pile of coals upon your head.

      Please, therefore, do not add chaos to the confusion already prevalent in the Church due to the current diabolical crisis of Faith and morality; instead, educate yourself about the Fatima apparitions and prophecies, unfolding before our very eyes, and then – with respect – either return to the proper practise of the Faith or stop claiming Catholic credentials. And do, please stop bullying folk.

      Kind regards

      Signed
      Editor
      Catholic Truth

  19. We live today in a kind of soft totalitarianism. Catholics, or anyone who believes in the natural law, are effectively excluded from public office. It’s not like the old USSR, with state censors and labour camps in Siberia, but it’s no less effective in ensuring adherence to the prevailing articles of faith of the modern world.
    What Mr Rees-Mogg said on GMB was not even especially hard-hitting, but it was enough to unleash the predictable hysteria among the chattering classes. So now, if Mr Rees-Mogg still harbours any ambitions to be prime minister, he is going to have to make a display of giving assent to the doctrines of “equal marriage” and “fertility rights.” I have no doubt that he is a good man and does believe in what the Church teaches on these grave evils; however, if Mr Rees-Mogg wishes to continue in his political career, he is going to have to be seen at the first “gay wedding” he is invited to (and he will get invitations now) and he will have to post selfies with the happy couple and buy a beautiful present, even if he doesn’t know or like the couple in question. The media and Twitterati will go wild if he is elected leader of the Conservative Party, and the party itself will not accept him. Remember it was a Conservative MP who asked Tim Farron in the Commons if he thought gay sex was a sin, thereby kick-starting the backlash against him leading to his resignation. So some public display of assent to the modern philosophy is the necessary grain of incense and a sad consequence of trying to serve two masters.

    • Alex F

      I agree with you 100%. I woiuld add, however, that the Conservative Party is not the Tory Party of old. It has long sold out to the same sinister hidden forces that control Labour, the Lib Dems and the fake news. The obvious giveaway is that they are all united in their godlessness, the primary agenda being to eradicate Christian morality forever from the public domain. The old Conservative Party was a Party that would never have gone along with such a heinous agenda, but now it’s just another atheistic Socialist Party operating under a very misleading name. There’s nothing morally Conservative about today’s Tories.

      • My thanks to Athanasius for his response to my post.
        I agree. There is nothing “conservative” about the modern Conservative Party. They have become thoroughly atheistic, just like all the other main parties and their agenda is the same godless agenda.
        It is always going to be unlikely that the modern Tories would elect a real Tory as their leader at this point in history. However, Trump’s election and Brexit have shown that sometimes unlikely things can happen. After all, the Labour Party currently has a real Socialist as leader, and he has shown to be very popular with the actual party members, even though the majority of Labour MPs have tried their best to get rid of him. So it does not seem so incredible that the Conservative Party would elect someone who appears to be a real Tory as leader. The difference is, of course, that the Conservatives do not allow normal members to vote in leadership elections. They understand that the election of party leader is too important to let the plebs get wrong. The majority of Conservative MPs are just as plugged in to the modern world as any other party so someone like Mr Rees-Mogg is unlikely to be elected as leader.
        However, unlikely events have been known to happen before, and if Mr Rees-Mogg plays the game he may be in with a shot. The problem is, as posters have said above, there are things that a Catholic cannot compromise on. It’s not enough to practice as a Catholic and leave our beliefs on moral issues at home. Our Faith has to inform everything we say or do in both public and private. For instance, it is not enough to say “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I respect your opinion.” That’s the same as saying, “I oppose murder but respect your right to murder.” Similarly, it would be a grave occasion of sin for a Catholic to knowingly witness an invalid wedding, so we cannot even attend a wedding we know is obviously invalid, such as when two men pretend to get married. That’s what will be necessary to obtain public office, and that might not even be enough for the world. So a Catholic would have to ask if it is worth the price.

        • Alex F

          I agree that things can sometimes take a strange twist, but when the people of the nation are kept out of the vote it usually goes the establishment way, and it’s very obvious that Britain remains extremely hostile to the Catholic religion. I do not believe a practicing Catholic will ever be allowed to be leader of the Party. Corbyn, on the othe hand, only got a surge of support because of Theresa May’s incredible suicide election policy aimed at the nations pensioners. Had she not made that fatal error Corbyn would have been away.

          It’s interesting that all the silly young people, the kids with no experience of life, are voting that Communist into popularity. I mean to say, he was laughed at when he turned up in the Commons one day and started quoting from Mao Tse Tung’s little red book. It was pretty embarrassing for the nation and now their touting this old commie as a possible future Prime Minister. Crazy Britain right enough.

          Anyway, JRM is not the only “Traditional-leaning” Catholic in the Tory Party. Claire Coffey is also a Catholic who used to be Traditional (SSPX). I stayed overnight at her house back in 1989 when Archbishop Lefebvre came to Liverpool to bless the new chapel there. Her parents were lovely people, as was Claire and her sister who were teenagers at the time. As far as I understand it, though, Claire stopped going to the Traditional Mass many years ago. I could be wrong but that was the information that came to me. If so, then it’s a great pity.

          • Alex F

            Plenty of typos in that response, sorry about that. I will definitely have to slow down with the typing and/or spell check before posting.

          • Thank you for your response, Athanasius.
            It’s always hopeful to learn of traditional-leaning Catholics in Parliament. I had never heard of Claire Coffey until now. Even if they do go to the new Mass, there is still hope that they might not be so infected with Modernism that they might still have held onto a bit of Catholic sense. We can but hope!

          • Athanasius, the Coffeys stopped attending the SSPX Masses around the time that the then Prior, Fr. King, started putting up his “modesty notices.” You will probably remember them with their long list of women’s clothing that he deemed unacceptable. There was a lot of hostility towards them at all the chapels but it was particularly strong in Liverpool because it was posted on the outside door and people felt it would put newcomers off. Added to this, there was an elderly lady who used to stand in the porch selling literature, and because there was no heating she would wear trousers to keep warm. apparently Fr King kept telling her off for wearing them and no amount of explaining would satisfy him. There was another lady who wore trousers because she had badly scarred legs and he reduced her to tears with his reprimands. Eventually the Coffeys had enough and left but continued to attend an “approved” Traditional Latin Mass. There was an article about Therese in one of the “Catholic” papers last year and it did say that she was a supporter of the Tridentine Mass so I assume she still attends, but not at a SSPX chapel.

            • Vianney

              Yes, I knew the Coffey’s had left the SSPX but I didn’t know why. Now I know it was down to Fr. King, who, thankfully, has now taken himself off to the “Resistance” along with all the other bitter zeal brigade.

              I remember the horrible atmosphere created by a handful of priests like Fr. King with his Wee Free spirit. Everything was a sin; watching TV, smoking cigarettes, women dressed in trousers, etc. And the worst thing was that they were making it up to suit their own miserable personalities. The SSPX never had official rules about these things. The damage this handful of fanatics caused during that period is incalculable, both to the reputation of the SSPX and to consciences.

              It all started with Bishop Williamson, he was the one who turned them into Wee Free’s with all his writings about “pants” and modern technology. Well, they’re all together now in their own wee sect and the SSPX is much healthier without them. Pity it didn’t happen while Sally and Tom were alive.

              • Athanasius,

                Fr. King certainly done a lot of damage when he was in charge. I remember him saying that people shouldn’t attend Mass in working clothes and should go home first and change. This, to people trying to get to Mass in their lunch hour on Holy Days of Obligation. Despite his opposition to women in trousers his own mother used to wear them. I remember Sally Coffey showing me a leaflet that was doing the rounds of the SSPX chapels in the north of England. It had a photo of a woman in a burka and the caption “available soon at an SSPX chapel repository near you.” Apparently he is claiming that he is not in the resistance but is independent, yet both resistance groups (the original resistance, and the resistance to the resistance) claim him as their own and advertise his Masses.
                You mention Sally and Tom, I hadn’t heard that Sally had died, was this recently? She was still alive when Therese was elected an MP as I saw a photo of the two of them taken at Westminster.

                • Vianney

                  Maybe I’ve jumped the gun on Sally. I just assumed she had passed away by now, she was a good age back in ’89. Oops! Sorry Sally.

                  Regarding Fr. King, I know he claims to be independent but the truth as we all understand it is that he is an independent priest of the resistance, without which he would have nothing to do.

                  I don’t think he left the SSPX because he particularly supported the resistance, I think it was more personal than that. He probably guessed he was about to be transferred abroad and didn’t want to leave Britain. If that was the case then he should not have joined the missionary SSPX to begin with.

                  We can only hope and pray in charity that all these rebellious people, especially priests, will regain some sense of humilty and return to sanity. It’s a big ask when up against their kind of belligerence, but not impossible from at least some. Crazy people!

                  • Athanasius and Vianney,

                    Further to your discussion about Fr King leaving the SSPX and his relationship (if any) with the “resistance”:

                    Yesterday I happened to google our former district superior, Fr Paul Morgan, to see where he was based now (I am terribly nosy you see).

                    The results threw up several of those wacky resistance blogs, claiming Fr Morgan has recently left the SSPX to “join the resistance”.

                    However, further reading seemed to indicate that Fr Morgan has in fact decided to become a Capuchin (in France). I also discovered information that a French SSPX priest, Fr David Aldalur is making the same move. A few years go, our district newsletter featured news of some British laymen joining these orders, as well as the then superior of the SSPX French district.

                    Am I right to think the traditional Capuchin orders in France are not formally part of the SSPX structure, but are closely aligned with the Society?

                    Some of the resistance blogs claim these Capuchins orders are part of the resistance, seemingly based on a claim they reject the recent arrangements put forward by Rome regarding SSPX marriages. But surely that in itself does not mean they have made any drastic move?

                    These blogs claim all of Fr Morgan, Fr Aldalur and all other former Society priests who have moved to the Capuchins are all now “resistance priests”. They claim 100 priests have left the SSPX to be “resistance” priests.

                    Personally I think these claims are erroneous and this “resistance” is just a small deluded outfit, who would claim allegiance from anyone and anything if they thought they could get away with it.

                    I would appreciate any information / thoughts on this, especially with regard to Fr Morgan.

                    • Gabriel Syme

                      I also heard that Fr. Morgan had joined the Capuchins in France but was then told by a priest in the U.S. that he was living with his brother, so I don’t really know what’s going on with him.

                      I think the Capuchins in question have in fact cut ties with the SSPX but are not active resistance people. It seems they just disagree with the SSPX in its negotiations with Rome but prefer not to be vocal about it. That’s what I was told but again I don’t know for sure.

                      Some of the resistance people were tipping Fr. Morgan as Bishop Williamson’s fourth bishop. It seems Bishop Williamson is trying to create a parallel structure to the SSPX, including four bishops consecrated by him. Maybe he thinks the SSPX robbed him of the superior General role and has therefore decided to create a new SSPX with him at the top.

                      Speaking on the phone recently with a friend in South America, he said the resistance has already split into numerous opposing groups, some with their own pope. It’s hard to believe that educated Catholics could be led into such blindness. That’s what anger does to those with bitter zeal, it leads them into total darkness.

                    • Regarding Fr Morgan, I too heard that he was going to join the Capuchins in Morgon but also heard that his brother stays near to the monastery and he was going to live with him.

                      While the community at Morgon have criticised the talks with Rome they don’t seem to have cut ties with the SSPX as they still appear on the SSPX French District web site on the religious orders page, and in fact, James Murphy, the late Sacristan in Edinburgh, was attached to the Third Order at Morgon.

                      It’s not a surprise that the resistance has split into different factions. They have a Protestant mentality and like the Protestant Churches if they don’t agree with something they just go off and stat an new Church.

                    • Vianney

                      Absolutely right in your assessment of the resistance, it’s just like Protestantism. I hope they open their eyes to the fact and get their souls back on the Catholic track, so to speak.

                      You mention the late James Murphy, God rest him. I liked James, he was a fixture in Edinburgh for as long as I can remember. Sadly missed.

                  • Athanasius,

                    I think you are correct about Fr King. He was going to leave the SSPX a few years ago and set up an independent Mass centre on the Isle of Lewis. Not a catholic island like Barra, South Uist or Eriskay, no, he was going to one of the most Protestant Islands in the country. It was all because friends of his had a holiday home on the island and were going to retire there. they asked him to go to be their chaplain but it never materialised. He spent all his priestly life within the SSPX in the north of England and apparently any attempts to move him were met with resistance. I heard that he was told he was going to be moved and that this time he would have to go and that, like you say, is probably the real reason he left.

                  • Hi Helen

                    We’re talking about Therese Coffey, the Conservative MP. She was a Traditional Catholic when I knew her many years ago but not sure if she is now. Vianney thinks she is, so we’ll assume that’s the case.

  20. Piers morgan has a history of trying to push his own version of Catholic belief and doctrine.

    In an embarrasing moment for him a renowned atheist puts him in his place and sounds more Catholic than Morgan

  21. Paisley Parishioner

    Fantastic video, thank you for posting it. Great to see Mr. Morgan get shown for what he has become – a Protestant. The guy who is a supposed atheist, however, is closer to God than he knows, I suspect. I have a feeling that man will eventually come into the Catholic Church. I hope so, he’d make a good Catholic apologist!

    • Athanasius,

      Yes, Penn was brilliant! He spoke with real passion and understanding. I know he is a magician – if only he could make Piers Morgan disappear, or even better, but him in a box and saw him in half!

  22. “But gay weddings are legal.” Oh are they? So when St Thomas Aquinas states that a bad law is no law what does he mean? To be a politician in this day and age is a risk to one’s soul, yet we are desperately in need of strong, truthful and holy Catholic leaders. The problem is, history demonstrates, that they usually lose their heads.

  23. There is a tendency in our human nature to put ourselves in the place of others when they are answering a question and sometimes we are disappointed when they do not reply in the way we would. But all of us are different. We should therefore after any such happenings ask the question did he say anything wrong. I do not see that an interview on TV is a place for an explanation of doctrine. In the statement that he did not judge gays was the implicit message that what they were doing was wrong. In our teaching there is the distinction made between formal sin and actual sin. Yes an act is always sinful in itself but there is the question of culpability which depe4nds on so many things including the formation of conscience. I think I would probably answer exactly how Rees-Mogg did- but that may not be your opinion.

    • John,

      You don’t see anything wrong in what Jacob Rees-Mogg said in his interview on TV (and subsequent interviews on radio and in newspapers when he said he would have no problem attending a “gay” wedding?

      If, as you say, a TV interview in not the place for an explanation of doctrine (God may beg to differ, given His instruction to us to “go out into the whole world [to spread the Fatih] “) but, if that is your view, all I can say is, in that case, JRM should not have answered the questions asked. He should have said what the cops say on camera when asked for details of a crime: that he was not at liberty to discuss the issues in question, since a TV interview is not the appropriate time or place. But he didn’t.

      “Yes an act is always sinful in itself …”

      Well Mr Rees-Mogg refused to say that. THAT is the problem.

      It’s not about “judging” – that is a typical modernist red herring. He must have made judgements during his life: which political party to join, which girl to marry, blah blah, so it’s baloney to say we cannot judge. We make judgements all the time.

      The only thing we may NOT judge is the soul of another. I can say that, yes, sodomy – commonly called “gay sex” these days – is ALWAYS a sin, but I am not free to speculate on the condition of the soul of the sodomite. I can certainly say that an unrepentant sodomite is in spiritual danger, may lose his soul, but I can’t say he HAS lost his soul or is going to Hell. I can only say that – like any other person committing a mortal sin and refusing to repent of it before death – he is at risk of ending up in Hell.

      There’s really nothing controversial in any of that. It’s ancient moral teaching, which the Church upholds because it reflects the correct natural order. Those who do not engage in such unnatural homosexual activity are healthy in body and soul. Those who do engage in it, risk both physical and spiritual well-being and the latter for all eternity. Common sense.

      Where’s the controversy? Why couldn’t JRM just say that, and be done with it?

      It is quite shocking to me to read that you would have answered in the same impoverished way that JRM answered. At your age, John, you should be hanging your head in shame. You should know better.

  24. I haven’t time to take on board all that this thread examines. It is a very good thread. Although I agree with those who said that Jacob Rees Mogg has not been thoroughly catechised as a traditional Catholic, I still think he is a shining example, especially to our mute hierarchy. He defended his beliefs and Church teaching in a very brave manner and in the face of severe hostilities. I think we should be proud of such a Catholic man post the ravages of Vatican 2.

    The bishops should not be letting the laity take the flack whilst they cosy up to the world!!

    • Crofterlady,

      “a shining example”?

      He’s hardly a shining example! He’s no different from the hierarchy – they’re all politically correct. He only spoke out on abortion, but I didn’t see any severe hostilities on anything, He was only asked if he thought homosexuality was a sin, and he refused to answer. I’ve been asked the same question and just answered “yes, it is a sin”. I didn’t see the question as hostile. He was pushed a little to check that he meant abortion was wrong even in cases of incest or rape but there was no hostility that I could see.

      • Lily,

        Just checked, and you said above somewhere that Piers Morgan “barracked” Jacob Rees Mogg ! Be consistent wummin!

        Still, I think you’re basically right – it wasn’t much of a barracking – I’ve had worse over a cup of tea with my family and alleged friends 😀

    • Lily,

      Jacob Rees Mogg makes money out of abortion pills

      I havent read in great detail, but I think that link is a hatchet job on Mogg. It says:

      Invitec is made to treat stomach ulcers but is widely used to trigger terminations in Indonesia, where abortions are illegal.

      So it isn’t fair of the evening standard to say his investment company “profits from abortion pills”.

      The drugs are actually made as medicine for stomach ulcers, but are used in Indonesia to harm unborn children. It seems that the production of the drugs is legitimate with healthcare in mind, but a secondary function of them is being abused.

      George Osbourne, former Tory MP and Chancellor, is now Editor of the Evening Standard – I wonder if these kind of articles are being used to attack his rivals in the party?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: