EU: How Should UK Catholics Vote?

EU: How Should UK Catholics Vote?

ON June 23, Catholics in England and Wales will be confronted by the same question as everyone else: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

We are given only two possible answers – “Remain” or “Leave”. The Church is not officially taking sides and therefore we are free to choose.

But that word “officially” is crucial. Both Cardinal Vincent Nichols and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor have endorsed a vote to Remain. These are their personal convictions, they have stressed.

They have not, however, kept these personal views private – unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who probably also supports staying in the EU but who has not jeopardised his authority by saying so.

Anglicans and Catholics therefore find themselves in different situations. The former will arrive at the polling booth unencumbered by advice from their spiritual leader. The latter, in contrast, are being nudged towards a “Remain” vote not only by Their Eminences but also by the Pope.

Archbishop Paul Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States within the Holy See, suggested "Brexit" could weaken Europe. In an interview with ITV, the English cleric who has a weekly meeting with Pope Francis, gave a clear signal of Rome's view of the best outcome of the forthcoming in/out referendum on continued EU membership. "The Holy See respects the ultimate decision of the British people – that's for the British electorate to decide," he said.
Archbishop Paul Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States within the Holy See, suggested “Brexit” could weaken Europe. In an interview with ITV, the English cleric who has a weekly meeting with Pope Francis, gave a clear signal of Rome’s view of the best outcome of the forthcoming in/out referendum on continued EU membership. “The Holy See respects the ultimate decision of the British people – that’s for the British electorate to decide.”

Last Friday, Pope Francis received the Charlemagne Prize for services to European integration. The prize is awarded by the city of Aachen in the Rhineland, which Charlemagne chose as his capital and which, under the name of Aix-la-Chappelle, was for centuries a direct vassal of the Holy Roman Empire.     

Last week it could have been mistaken for a direct vassal of the European Union. The awards ceremony, held in the Vatican, was addressed by Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, and Donald Tusk, president of the European Council.

They must have been pleased to hear Francis identify Brussels with “the soul of Europe”. On immigration, the Pope brushed aside the fears of Eurosceptics and even the anxieties of pro-EU national politicians. Tighter border controls were a manifestation of “meanness”, serving “our own selfish interests”. It’s not hard to work out where the Holy Father’s sympathies lie in the British referendum. The Vatican’s “foreign minister”, the Liverpool-born Archbishop Paul Gallagher, has said bluntly: “Better in than out.”

Catholic Eurosceptics are not pleased by this collective nudging. And the fact that it is unofficial does nothing to placate them.

Why, they ask, did Cardinal Nichols insist that leaving the European Union “would create more complex problems” than staying in when his own Bishops’ Conference did not encourage a vote in either direction? Why has his predecessor twice come out of retirement to support the EU, first in an interview with an Italian Catholic news agency and just last week in the Spectator?

There is no single answer. Rather, a number of strands of thinking have produced a mindset every bit as inflexible as that of the Guardian’s favourite stereotype, the blazer-clad Kipper spouting rancid xenophobia in a saloon bar.

The most intellectually respectable of these strands leads back to the European Coal and Steel Community, formed after the Second World War by Robert Schuman, Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gasperi. Of these, only Monnet – the French political economist who became the community’s first president – was not a conspicuously devout Catholic. (His private life was complicated: he was married to a woman who left her husband for him and had to travel to Moscow to obtain a divorce; the Monnets could not have a Catholic wedding until the first husband was dead, by which time Jean was 85. The ceremony took place in the basilica at Lourdes.)

Schuman, twice prime minister of France, and De Gasperi, eight times prime minister of Italy and founder of the Christian Democrats, were men of such personal holiness that there have been calls to canonise them. Adenauer, the scheming first Chancellor of West Germany, is not a candidate for sainthood – but he was a trenchantly Catholic statesman during a political career lasting 60 years.

For Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi, the European Economic Community was fundamentally a Catholic project with roots that – in their imaginations, at least – could be traced back to Charlemagne.

Protestant Britons smelled a rat. They portrayed the new alliance as an attempt to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire. There was a grain of truth in this charge – though this “imperial” realm was little more than a patchwork of quarrelsome German principalities. To quote Voltaire, it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

Likewise, there was always an element of fantasy in the goal of “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”, first set out in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. But the Catholic inspiration for the EEC, left unstated in treaties, was anything but frivolous.

In 2008 the Catholic historian Alan Fimister published a book arguing that Schuman’s plans for Europe were “to a remarkable degree, the conscious implementation of the Neo-Thomistic project of Pope Leo XIII”.

Schuman, De Gasperi and Adenauer all believed that the answer to totalitarian ideologies lay in Leo’s vision of the restoration of “the principles of the Christian life in civil and domestic society”.

But Schuman went further: he subscribed to the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain’s notion of supranational democracy as the foundation for a new Christendom. “He held fast to the magisterium’s demand that the final destination of Catholic political action must be the recognition by the civil order of the truth of the Faith,” writes Fimister.

And how was this to be achieved? By the voluntary submission of non-Catholic Europeans to the spiritual authority of Rome.

Pope Francis invoked Schuman when he received his Charlemagne speech. But one wonders whether he and other champions of European union fully understand the uncompromising nature of Schuman’s commitment to Catholic civil order.

There is certainly little trace of it in Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s Spectator article, which sets out a less ambitious vision of Catholic Europe.

The cardinal wants the EU to stay open to  “the transcendent dimension of life” and its own “humanistic spirit”. He does not, however, define transcendence or humanism, concepts that had an exclusively Catholic meaning for Schuman. This lack of clarity is made worse by the platitudinous assertion that “all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up”.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is more convincing when he writes that he feels “close to Europe because I lived for many years in Italy and, as a bishop, I have been in touch with fellow bishops from all the European continent on a regular basis”.

The genial cardinal is popular in the Vatican; more than any other English cleric, he embodies Romanitas, the Roman way of doing things. If you want an audience with the Pope, or a recommendation for a trattoria in the Borgo Pio, ask the retired Archbishop of Westminster. His affection for the EU is an extension of this Romanitas.

Cardinal Nichols is also fervently pro-EU, but his support for it has a less Roman flavour. He is, as I remember from his days as general secretary of the Bishops’ Conference, a man who works through committees and relishes bureaucratic procedure.

His politics bear the stamp of his Liverpudlian upbringing. He favours public expenditure over private enterprise; his speeches employ the vocabulary of the state sector. It’s hard to think of a bishop less in sympathy with Eton-educated Catholic Tory Brexiteers such as Charles Moore and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The Nichols philosophy embraces the dirigism of Brussels; in this he is typical of the moderate British Left, which changed its mind about the Common Market after Jacques Delors persuaded it that Europe was an indispensable ally against “free-market fundamentalism”.

One suspects that Cardinal Nichols would admire the modus operandi of the European Union even if it had no association with the Church. The same could be said of many bishops of England and Wales.

But not, perhaps, all of them. The failure of the Bishops’ Conference to recommend a “Remain” vote is a mystery. Until recently its stance was ultra-Europhile. Did one or two bishops refuse to back such a recommendation because they are sympathetic to the arguments for leaving?

It’s a possibility. Interestingly, some of Cardinal Nichols’s own clergy in Westminster are pro-Brexit. They include one well-known priest who believes that Brussels – which has just granted visa-free visiting rights to 75 million Turks, preparing the ground for Turkish membership of the EU – is dismantling what remains of Christendom.

Might Robert Schuman have shared this priest’s view that the 21st-century European Union is more an enemy of the Church than its friend? Unsurprisingly, no one considered this possibility on Monday, which was marked across the EU as “Schuman Day”.

But there are clues in an interview Alan Fimister, now a professor of theology and Church history at St John Vianney Seminary in Denver, gave to mark the publication of his book. Schuman “would have been appalled by the culture of death” embraced by pro-abortion European politicians and officials, he said. The “creeping dictatorship of relativism” emanating from Brussels is a corruption of his vision.

Obviously we don’t know whether Schuman would have disowned a swollen, secularised EU in its current form. But Fimister believes that those European Catholics who share the founder’s views have done just that.

As he told the Catholic Herald in March, “orthodox Catholics across the EU … are overwhelmingly negative about the European Union, and not just for reactionary reasons. They’re negative because they just see it as part of the general secularising trend.”

Cardinals Nichols and Murphy-O’Connor would no doubt challenge Fimister’s use of the word “orthodox”: they might say he is referring to a particular brand of conservative Catholic.

But, even if we are talking only about theological conservatives, Fimister’s point surely holds. The ranks of prominent Brexit supporters contain a surprising number of practising Catholics for whom the contemporary EU is an obstacle to the revival of Europe’s Catholic identity. These views are ignored by the Church hierarchy, from the Holy Father downwards. So, for that matter, are the opinions of less polemical Catholic voters who see the referendum question as essentially political and want to quit the EU for reasons that have little to do with their faith.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and – more sotto voce – Cardinal Nichols think the decision does have religious implications. Both men associate our EU membership with “welcoming migrants”, though neither seems prepared to debate the effects on society of uncontrollably shifting demography.

Some Catholics feel the English cardinals’ personal interventions are inappropriate. There has been no great fuss, however, because they are unlikely to affect the outcome of the referendum.

In the end, their arguments are not persuasive. This is partly because they are only half formed and partly because they do not really harmonise: Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s post-conciliar Romanitas and Cardinal Nichols’s 1980s-style defence of the bureaucratic status quo reflect their different ages and backgrounds.

That would not be a problem for them if Catholic enthusiasm for Brussels still had its traditional taken-for-granted quality. But today Schuman’s utopian project seems outmoded, almost quaint, in an age when globalisation is pulling apart every stitch of the social fabric once known as Christendom.

One result of these changes is that, to put it bluntly, the opinions of Catholic clergy carry no weight with the public. And another is that, despite the award of the Charlemagne Prize to the successor of Peter, the strands of thinking that once attached Catholic Europe to the European Union are unravelling. Whichever way we vote, they will continue to do so after June 23.   Source


Should the Catholic  hierarchy in any part of the UK try to influence Catholics to vote one way or another in the EU referendum?  Is there a “Catholic” way to vote” – a “right or wrong” way to vote?   Or are we free to make up our own minds? 

Comments (95)

  • westminsterfly

    I have been sent a 12 page pamphlet called ‘The Biblical Case for Brexit’. It is not from a Catholic source (I think it was written by a Methodist) but it does make some fair points. It is available to buy here for £1.20 as a Kindle download, if anyone is interested

    May 12, 2016 at 3:33 pm
  • Frankier

    Is the twelve stars on the EU flag not the Intellectual Property of the Catholic Church?

    May 12, 2016 at 3:59 pm
  • Athanasius


    Yes, my understanding is that the man who designed the EU flag had a devotion to Our Lady and so borrowed the twelve stars from Biblical references to the Blessed Virgin’s crown. If true, he sure got one over on the dark forces behind that despotic Union.

    May 12, 2016 at 4:11 pm
  • RCA Victor

    This reminds me of the introduction to Fr. Malachi Martin’s Windswept House, in which he has Pius XII warning about the Church becoming ensnared in the tentacles of “Ostpolitik.” And he was right, since, after him, the Papacy and the Church have been largely surrendered to the Freemasonic UN.

    That said, it remains for Abp. Paul Gallagher to demonstrate, if Brexit would “weaken” Europe, how the EU has in fact “strengthened” Europe. That would certainly be a major task for a professional spin-meister, since the EU has in fact destroyed Europe quite comprehensively.

    Moreover, if the prelates of the modern Church had an ounce of Ostpolitik-free faith left in them, they would urge their flock to vote to leave, since the EU is just a bureaucratic variety of Communism – the very same Communism defined by Pius XI as “intrinsically perverse.”

    But they have all surrendered to said perversity, it would appear – including the perversity of the present occupant of the Chair of Peter.

    May 12, 2016 at 4:26 pm
    • Lionel

      I think that you are right RCA Victor; you should be free to make up your own minds with no unsuitable exterior interferences.
      This is a political and personal issue exclusively.

      May 12, 2016 at 10:52 pm
      • RCA Victor

        Actually, Lionel, given the diabolical nature of the EU, I think it is a very Catholic issue, since the EU intends to suppress and, if possible, to abolish every trace of our Faith.

        May 12, 2016 at 10:58 pm
      • Lionel

        I agree with you entirely, RCA Victor.
        However as a foreigner I am not authorized to give voting instructions.
        It is clear that this Europe, Tower of Babel, is completely atheistic and in this regard it concerns religious matters… and for this reason the bishops should oppose it.

        May 12, 2016 at 11:52 pm
  • RCA Victor

    Here is Christopher Ferrara’s commentary on the Pope receiving the Charlemagne prize:

    May 12, 2016 at 4:37 pm
  • Tony Buck

    The referendum decision will be complicated enough for those with no religious beliefs. The religious arguments bearing on the vote are even more tangled.

    For what it’s worth, here are one or two:

    Although the Church doesn’t recommend any particular political system, it does believe that those with power should be readily answerable to those without power. As the number of countries in the EU has grown, this has become increasingly difficult.

    The backward-looking paternalism of the EU’s Catholic founders, is an example of the well-intentioned but foolish “Nanny knows best” attitude that has so damaged the Church over the centuries. Outside theological matters, it is of course absurd; and tends to make Catholics good citizens only of some imaginary Ruritania where ordinary people can be treated as children.

    May 12, 2016 at 4:54 pm
    • editor


      No, you are right, “the Church doesn’t recommend any particular political system” but Catholic Social Teaching centres on the belief that Christ must be the Head of every nation under heaven.

      Makes it very difficult for conscientious Catholic voters on polling day.

      May 12, 2016 at 10:07 pm
    • Athanasius

      Tony Buck

      “The backward-looking paternalism of the EU’s Catholic founders….”

      With respect, where do you get this stuff from? What Catholic founders of the EU are you speaking of? Can you name them please?

      I am not aware of the EU having been formed by Catholics, certainly not practicing ones.

      May 12, 2016 at 11:14 pm
  • sarto2010

    Who cares? Anything Cardinal Nichols and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor are in favour of, I will automatically vote the opposite. Same goes for Archbishop Philip Tartaglia.

    May 12, 2016 at 5:21 pm
    • Lionel

      I would do it either.

      May 12, 2016 at 11:21 pm
    • rusticus1

      Quite right, Sarto! It doesn’t matter what those two gentlemen are for – but (in the words of Groucho Marx) – “whatever it is, I’m against it”!

      May 24, 2016 at 9:26 pm
      • Athanasius


        I think in Sarto’s case previous experience with the above named prelates does somewhat justify his assertion. Groucho’s comedy satire shouldn’t be confused with Sarto’s common sense, even if his one-liners are classics.

        My favourite is “I wouldn’t join any club that would have me for a member”.

        May 24, 2016 at 10:17 pm
  • editor


    If you hang on, there is a Fatima thread going up at midnight, so I’ll remove these comments once you’ve re-posted there. Hold all responses, folks, please and thank you.

    May 12, 2016 at 9:48 pm
  • Athanasius


    These Churchmen have sold out the Sovereignty of Christ the King in favour of the ecumenical Tower of Babel, so advising a nation to sell it’s sovereignty in the interests of extending the Babel project into secular life is easy for these revolutionary Modernists.

    May 12, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    I feel very strongly regarding The E U …[Evil Union]…..and the way its edicts affect our way of life and encroaches more and more ….the vast majority of people I speak to locally want out ..for most the spotlight is on economics /financial gain /trading etc ..but mine is on the Moral .side ..Abortion ,Sterilization ,Morning after pills now ingested like sweeties ,Euthanasia ,Prostitution,The proverbial Reproductive wrongs ,immoral pornographic sex ed ,So called contraception..schoolgirls having long acting implants inserted ,LGBT wrongs and the rising surge of Transgender……now 4 y r olds are being asked what gender they are in Brighton !!!!!! all of this is encouraged by the E U often funded …I feel with this vote we must consider our Childrens /Grandchildrens future dare you think in 30 yrs time what things will be like one hardly dares to imagine it ?…..I do think a No Vote will help keep this particular dragon from the door and protect our next generations and their future .I feel to stay in is akin to jumping over the precipice without a parachute …of course The E U does not seem to like Religion either so hey ho here we go …..If you would like more information on The Leave Campaign their contact details are ..0207 952 5454…E Mail… …thank you

    May 13, 2016 at 9:29 am
    • editor


      I agree with you and I will be voting to leave, definitely. However, I think the damage has been done in terms of morality and I can’t see the UK changing its [rainbow] colours now – I think we will continue to be a decadent society whether in or out of the EU. Still, a spoke in the wheel might help a little.

      May 13, 2016 at 10:14 am
      • Petrus

        I will also be voting to leave. It’s an idiotic union based on the evil principles of the French Revolution!

        May 13, 2016 at 8:22 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Wendy Walker,

      I couldn’t agree more. The EU is a very evil organisation. I can’t believe anyone would want to vote remain. If it’s for money reasons, they are no better than Judas Iscariot, then.

      May 13, 2016 at 5:44 pm
      • Josephine

        That’s all they think about, money and jobs. Some say that we wouldn’t have the human rights we have, such as equal pay etc. with the EU, but I think that wouldn’t be the case now. I’m voting out, for sure. For one thing, the politicians here use the EU to makes excuses when it suits them, they can’t do this or have to do that because of EU rules, so all in all, we’re better out IMHO.

        May 13, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Sorry this is deviating away from the theme but forgive me this very important Petition came to me today please sign and share with all like minded people ..Aslo PLEASE PRAY for The wonderful March For Life taking place today in Birmingham …and all the participants ….thank you

    May 14, 2016 at 10:15 am
    • Therese

      Signed. Thanks Wendy.

      May 14, 2016 at 9:18 pm
      • Christina

        Signed, Wendy.

        May 17, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    • Elizabeth

      Signed. Wendy

      May 17, 2016 at 8:25 pm
  • editor


    Thank you for that – I’ve signed.

    And I, too, am posting a link here which is not directly related to the EU debate but I think the rise of this transgender craziness has some relation to the EU liberal approach to morality. This is a telling quote from towards the end of the article: “We must vehemently oppose it, but have compassion for the people trapped in the modern sexual liberation movement. They are indeed victims, but of indoctrination, not discrimination.” Absolutely.

    In any case, at only 20-odd comments, this topic is not exactly setting the heather on fire, is it!

    May 14, 2016 at 10:36 am
  • Pat McKay

    Dear All,

    Editor’s request – to give you the ‘heads-up’ about recent letters in the Bedfordshire Times & Citizen.

    This all began with a letter in the 28/04 edition. A ‘Mr George’ had a moan about how things are going ‘down the pan’ in our society, basically because ‘we said ‘no’ to God’ (surprise!). I couldn’t resist a response, which was published in last week’s edition:-

    Dear Madam

    I agree with you, Mr George (Readers’ Views, 28/04/2016).

    We were given righteous laws and were commanded to obey them in the interests of the common good. When we ignore or defy those laws, we invite the kind of disorder, chaos and misery we currently find ourselves immersed in.

    Once the First Commandment has been thrown out, the remainder soon follow. The 1950s may have been austere times, but in those days there was Faith around, people knew right from wrong, we had some semblance of peace, law and order. We are assured we are now living in ‘enlightened times’. However, it would be interesting to compare 1950s statistics for violence and crime, suicides, drug and alcohol-related deaths, broken homes, disfunctional families, child abuse etc. with those of the present day.

    The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, thanks to all the ‘social engineering’ that’s been foisted upon us for the past half-century.

    Patrick McKay (end).

    I had an idea the bullets would be flying as a consequence in this week’s (sure enough) so pre-empted it with another letter about so-called ‘bathroom wars’ i.e. ‘transgender’ males demanding the right to use ladies’ public restrooms.

    To add a bit of clout, I attached a cartoon (some of you may have seen it, it brilliantly lampoons this nonsense) to my letter to the editor – it appears to have done the trick!

    Readers’ Views are on p10. If you see fit, please do fire off a response to that nice Mr Steinhardt editorial@times&

    Many thanks.

    May 14, 2016 at 10:59 am
    • Pat McKay

      Apologies – that e-mail address should be

      May 14, 2016 at 11:02 am
    • Michaela

      Pat McKay,

      I can’t see your name on the letters page or any cartoon. I did flick through the pages to p.10 and did see letters from readers but can’t see yours (although I will try again to make sure) but I definitely can’t see any cartoon. Can you post the cartoon here separately?

      May 14, 2016 at 11:47 am
      • Michaela

        Sorry, I do see your letter now – very good. I had another look, but still cannot see any cartoon.

        May 14, 2016 at 11:49 am
      • Pat McKay

        Michaela, the editor didn’t publish that cartoon, didn’t think she would. If I can figure out how to post it here, I’ll surely do it.

        May 14, 2016 at 12:28 pm
      • Michaela

        Pat McKay,

        I understand now. I should have guessed that. Sorry to be so thick!

        May 14, 2016 at 10:59 pm
      • Pat McKay

        Michaela, the CT editor might care to forward that cartoon to your e-mail address, if you ask her nicely (please and thank you).

        May 15, 2016 at 12:50 pm
  • Therese


    Your letter is excellent. I have sent a letter to the editor in support, but I hae ma doots that it’ll be published.

    Dear Editor

    I loved Mark Steinhardt’s fantasy letter. Apparently we in the 21st century don’t have women stuck in unhappy marriages; now we can be unhappy in serial relationships instead. Yay! Like the 50s, we still have children beaten, abused and denied opportunity, BUT ”high reporting of abuse means less silence and injustice”. Wow. That’s progress! What a comfort to the victims that is. “You still have no protection, but at least we will cry with you”.

    He acknowledges that recorded crime was low in the 50s, but assures us that the figures have been falling for some years now. Go tell it to the marines Mr Steinhardt.

    Mr Steinhardt asked Mr McKay to ask any woman he knows to compare her life to her grandmother’s, and actually listen to the answer. I’ll answer Mr Steinhardt (although I doubt if HE will listen). Technological progress has made life much easier in my time than in my grandmother’s, for which much thanks, but what we have gained in material wealth and convenience we have lost in spiritual and moral integrity. We kill babies with impunity; the soil of England is drenched in the blood of “wanted” abortions, Mr Steinhardt, which apparently meets with your approval. No wonder you see a society struggling – but it’s not improving

    May 14, 2016 at 10:11 pm
    • Michaela


      That’s also a fantastic letter. I do hope they publish it. It will be a travesty if they don’t.

      May 14, 2016 at 11:01 pm
  • leprechaun

    Madame Editor,

    There are some wonderfully insightful postings on this thread and they are heart-warming to read.

    Thank you to those contributors.

    What does seem to be missing is a course of Catholic action by way of an appeal to the supernatural forces against which no spin doctors, politicians, fortune seekers or others driven by earthly motives can succeed.

    May I propose a novena to st. George, the patron saint of England, for his intercession for the success of those seeking to break free from the growing tyranny of Brussels?

    Perhaps we could start it on Wednesday 18th of May to end on Thursday 26th of May which is the Feast of Corpus Christi with the intention being: “Victory for the Leave campaign”?

    Faithful servant of God and invincible martyr, Saint George; favoured by God with the gift of faith, and inflamed with an ardent love of Christ, thou didst fight valiantly against the dragon of pride, falsehood, and deceit. Neither pain nor torture, sword nor death could part thee from the love of Christ. I fervently implore thee for the sake of this love to help me by thy intercession to overcome the temptations that surround me, and to bear bravely the trials that oppress me, so that I may patiently carry the cross which is placed upon me; and let neither distress nor difficulties separate me from the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Valiant champion of the Faith, assist me in the combat against evil, that I may win the crown promised to them that persevere unto the end.

    My Lord and my God! I offer up to Thee my petition [ for the success of the Leave campaign, if it bethe will of God] in union with the bitter passion and death of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, together with the merits of His immaculate and blessed Mother, Mary ever virgin, and of all the saints, particularly with those of the holy Helper in whose honour I make this novena.

    Look down upon me, merciful Lord! Grant me Thy grace and Thy love, and graciously hear my prayer.


    May 15, 2016 at 10:15 am
    • Athanasius


      Although I desperately want Britain to get out of that unholy alliance called the EU, I am not fooled by those who are leading the exit campaign. Boris Johnson, for example, was one of the strongest voices in favour of “gay marriage” not that long ago, so getting out of the EU is not going to make Britain any more Catholic.

      I think a Novena to St. George is perfectly good as a start to get us out of that evil EU. But we all know that what we really need to see is Our Lady’s triumph in the world. Things will never really get better for any of us until that great day dawns.

      Personally, I think David Cameron will pull every dirty trick in the book to ensure that Britain remains enslaved to the EU. Germany tried twice with arms to usurp control of this country and failed. Now it has full control as the boss of the EU. Why did our service personnel of the two great wars even bother to give their lives for a so-called democracy whose leaders have sold the country out to unknown and unelected foreign bureaucrats in Brussels. That kind of treachery used to be called treason. Economic advantage is all these people care about. They are dead to morality and patriotism.

      May 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    PLEASE SIGN And alert others to this vital petition

    May 15, 2016 at 11:08 am
    • editor


      I’ve just signed as well – this is truly barbaric.

      May 15, 2016 at 9:05 pm
  • Athanasius

    Wendy Walker

    Duly signed.

    Imagine midwives advocating the murder of babies in the womb up to full term. It’s just barbaric! Animals treat their young better!

    May 15, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    Thank you for your support Athanasius the petition seems to be going well .and the D Mail has a lot of very Pro Life comments people in total disgust and disbelief

    May 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
  • Athanasius

    Wendy Walker

    You are most welcome. And yes, the Daily Mail is a good choice of paper to tackle this outrage.

    May 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: