On September 21, Sky began its new series The Wargame, which features a “cabinet” of formerly high-ranking politicians from across the political parties, simulating a Russian attack on the U.K. It is truly remarkable that such a high-profile “cast” could be assembled for a “mere” reality show.

At the same time, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg – former Conservative Member of Parliament and leader of the House of Commons – has been discussing the need for the people of the United Kingdom to “join the armed services,” “do their duty,” and “face circumstances in which people have to die … to save their country, as they did in the First and Second World Wars, and in many other wars before and since.”

News🇬🇧🔥🇷🇺: “Over the next few years we may have to go to war, some of you may die? but this is about doing your DUTY”.

Watch as @Jacob_Rees_Mogg goes into new levels of pomposity rarely seen in British politics, since Lord Kitchener pointed at British men and cried “Your… pic.twitter.com/RTFpJHncpq

— HIN News🇬🇧🇺🇸 (@HerdImmunity12) September 20, 2026

“That is something that makes a country survive,” he said. “If people are not willing to do their duty, then the country will be taken over by another country, ultimately, one way or another.”

I think the British people would rise to greatness if they had to. We would have to lock a few people up, by the way: some of the pro-Russian voices, people who say there isn’t a threat, don’t fight for your country, don’t go to war for [Andrew] Burnham [our sixth prime minister in 10 years] – we’ll have to lock ‘em up.

Rees-Mogg’s response to Richards was effectively to agree:

Well, we suspended habeas corpus under the Napoleonic wars.

Habeas corpus is the centuries-old common law procedure which guaranteed subjects against arbitrary arrest.

Richards was a founder of the radical Labour political organization Progress. He is also the treasurer and a former national Chair for the Fabian Society.

Why should we care about Jacob Rees-Mogg?

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg enjoys a reputation as a kind of “super Catholic” in British public life.

He is regularly criticized by the left-wing press for his “pro-life views” and “homophobia.” He has also spoken out against same-sex “marriage.” He attends the Traditional Latin Mass. He has a cultivated persona as “The Honorable Member for the Eighteenth Century” – and has even spoken condescendingly about men changing their babies’ diapers.

In short, liberals consider him to be their worst nightmare. Because of this, some Catholics consider him to be a dream come true. However, when it comes to the Catholic faith and to moral issues, Rees-Mogg’s Catholic credentials are a veneer for the same liberalism that infects his fellow politicians.

Rees-Mogg and ‘the most Christian prime minister in 50 years’

In 2016, Rees-Mogg described David Cameron as “the most Christian prime minister in 50 years.” However:

• David Cameron was responsible for introducing same-sex “marriage” in 2013.
• In 2012, Cameron delivered a speech at Melinda Gates’ London Summit on Family Planning, at which he advocated for wider availability of contraception as a means of fighting poverty and “inequality.”
• In 2008, Cameron stated that he was in favour of the existing law that permitted the abortion of disabled babies up until birth. He also wrote to the U.K.’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), stating that he considered “proposals for wider access to abortion as ‘practical and sensible.'”

It is legitimate to ask whether Rees-Mogg’s comment about Cameron says more about his own Christianity than it does about Cameron’s.

Daniel Blackman recounts the context of this comment – which was an event at which this writer was also present:

He was speaking at the London [Brompton] Oratory, South Kensington, to a gathering of young conservatives and Catholics in their 20s and 30s.

When asked about his thoughts on Cameron’s same-sex marriage act, Rees-Mogg said: “It’s really hard for MPs because they get criticised for not standing by what they believe. Yet when David Cameron put forward his same-sex marriage plans he got criticised a lot, so it’s really hard, he really believed in it.”…

“I’m a Catholic, and I greatly value the Church’s sacrament of marriage. I voted against same-sex marriage, but I’m happy as long as the Catholic sacrament is left alone. The government is free to legislate and do as it pleases with secular legal marriage; however the legal arrangements are decided.”

When challenged by members of the shocked audience, Rees-Mogg resorted to anecdotes about how happy he was to have a Catholic marriage, and repeated that the government had the job of legislating marriage. It was for the government to decide how marriage was arranged in secular, civil society.

On the contrary, marriage is a natural institution, and governments are obliged to respect the nature of things in their legislation.

At the same talk, Rees-Mogg opined that it was good that society had decided not to legislate for Christian morality, because this made it more meritorious for those who try to be virtuous. This is contrary to common sense: the law has a normative force on the morality of society, and that which is permitted and forbidden necessarily has an effect on the conception of what is right and wrong.

Such is the teaching of the popes to whom Rees-Mogg referred throughout his talk, as Blackman states:

During his talk, Rees-Mogg quoted liberally from pre-Vatican II popes. Yet these same popes condemned the positions Rees-Mogg favoured in his talk.

For example, Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, condemned the idea that “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits,” and the error that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”

In an earlier interview, Rees-Mogg said: “My great hero is probably Pius IX, because of his traditional view of the state and the Church and his Syllabus of Errors was a clear view.”

A fellow member of the audience suggested privately that Rees-Mogg was “a child of Vatican II, bereft of authentic Catholic formation because of these changes ushered in following the council.” Whatever the case, it is hard to reconcile Rees-Mogg’s apparent familiarity with traditional Catholic teaching with his public comments.

Rees-Mogg’s talk was delivered, and these comments made, beneath a large bust of Pope Pius IX himself.

Rees-Mogg and ‘the most naturally freedom-loving prime minister’

In November 2020, Rees-Mogg referred to then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson as “the most naturally freedom-loving prime minister we could think of having.”

These comments were made during the COVID-19 debacle, in which Johnson oversaw the U.K.’s lockdowns. They came a few days after the October 31, 2020, announcement that England would go back into lockdown for a month.

(During the tier system of progressively severe restrictions which preceded this lockdown, Rees-Mogg was accused of “hypocrisy” for “ignoring government guidance” by travelling from his home in a lower tier, in order to attend a Traditional Latin Mass in a higher tier. The guidance stated that “you should stay local and avoid travelling outside of your local area.” Rees-Mogg was himself a part of the government that had imposed the restrictions.)

But Rees-Mogg was not just defending Johnson’s lockdown in November 2020: he himself voted for the measures in Parliament – in spite of the inclusion of yet more draconian restrictions against the Church, and significant fines imposed on those who violated them.

Those organizing communal worship – including Catholic priests – faced fines of up to £10,000 ($13,630 at the time) for doing so. At the time, LifeSiteNews’ Paul Smeaton reported that at least one church was visited by the police that weekend, and that the organizer of a religious event was already being considered for the maximum fine.

Smeaton also sent Rees-Mogg a request for comment, which contained the following:

On Wednesday November 4th 2020 you voted for a second lockdown which, among other appalling restrictions on the English people, suppressed public religious services. In doing so you formally co-operated in Parliament suppressing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the first time since the Catholic Relief Act. You voted to impose fines on those who disobey these new laws. Already there have been reports of police entering Catholic churches to check whether “communal services” are being conducted.

You must know that St Thomas Becket was martyred for the principle of the liberty of the Catholic Church from civil interference.

You have claimed to admire Pope Pius IX, particularly for “his traditional view of the state and the Church” and the Syllabus of Errors. You must know then of the 44th condemned error, which reads: “The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government.”

And further, you must also know that this principle is enshrined in English law by Magna Carta, which states that “the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable.”

How then can you, a Catholic and an Englishman, vote for such a law? You should have voted against the bill on these grounds alone. What bargain or promise of future reconsideration of the restrictions could justify such an act?

You should have preferred to resign, or indeed to suffer anything, rather than embrace the ignominy of voting for that bill.

I urge you to consider that such a public betrayal of the Church and your co-religionists is a scandal that requires a similarly public act of repentance.

I would be grateful if you could reply to my email with answers to my questions by 5 p.m. Thursday 12 November, after which we will publish our article.

Rees-Mogg did not reply. Smeaton’s article concluded with the following observation:

These are without doubt strange and difficult times for us all. The greatest consolation any of us can have is recourse to the Mass and the sacraments. Thanks to Rees-Mogg and his colleagues, the government is now attempting to deny these to the faithful in England. So with friends such as him, who needs enemies?

What should we make of this? Can. 1372 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

The following are to be punished according to the provision of can. 1336 §§ 2-4:

1° those who hinder the freedom of the ministry or the exercise of ecclesiastical power, or the lawful use of sacred things or ecclesiastical goods, or who intimidate one who has exercised ecclesiastical power or ministry […]

Can. 2334 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is clearer and stricter:

They are struck with an automatic excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See, who:

1.° Issue laws, mandates, or decrees contrary to the liberty or rights of the Church […]

Whichever code one believes to be in force, both canons represent the mind of the Church.

Rees-Mogg and the COVID shots

Prime Minister Johnson also presided over the rollout of the COVID “vaccines.” In December 2021, he declared that there would need to be a “national conversation” about mandatory vaccination in order to increase take-up nationally.

However, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and the “national conversation” about mandatory vaccination – desired by the man Rees-Mogg described as “the most naturally freedom-loving prime minister” – never took place.

In December 2020, Rees-Mogg was bragging in Parliament about how Brexit had enabled Britain to approve the COVID shots more quickly than they would have done in the EU:

As regards Brexit and the vaccine, the U.K. should be really proud that our regulator got in first […] This is a huge British success that we should be proud of and pleased about.

In May 2024, he spoke negatively about what he called the government’s “coercion” to take the shots at the time. However, he also stated that he considered the jab rollout to have been “the right decision” and that it “saved many lives” – despite acknowledging the lack of “long-term data” and that they “were not as effective as we first hoped.”

In the same video, he also condemned “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” because they are “negative, and it lowers trust in society.”

Rees-Mogg and the ‘pro-life movement’

Rees-Mogg has taken a firm anti-abortion stance over the years. He has “almost always” voted against increasing access to abortion. (Intriguingly, the same site reports that he “consistently voted for [100 percent] mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities.”)

He has also been an outspoken supporter of the anti-abortion movement in the media; however, at times his comments have been so problematic as to undermine the anti-abortion position itself.

For example, in 2017 he was challenged on his views on abortion and same-sex “marriage” on U.K. breakfast television. But while he was clear and immovable on this issue, his arguments were couched in the teaching of the Catholic Church, religious faith, and personal opinion. This amounts to a kind of “fideism,” treating opposition to grave moral evils as though it were merely a matter of religious observance, like abstaining from meat on Friday.

At the time, Lisa Bourne at LifeSiteNews reported:

Jacob Rees-Mogg said abortion was “morally indefensible” and he was personally opposed to it even in cases of rape and incest. Rees-Mogg said as well that he supported the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage.

The Conservative member of the British Parliament identified himself as a Catholic in an interview with Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on the Good Morning Britain television program and said repeatedly that he supports the teaching of the Church.

“I’m a Catholic and I take the teaching of the Catholic Church seriously,” Rees-Mogg responded when asked if he supports same-sex “marriage.” “Marriage is a sacrament and the decision of what is a sacrament lies with the Church and not with Parliament.”

The hosts pressed Rees-Mogg to state unequivocally whether he supports “marriage” between same-sex couples, to which he replied, “I support the teaching of the Catholic Church,” and, “The teaching of the Catholic Church is completely clear.”

At another point, he expressed his opposition to abortion in terms of his “personal opinion”:

When posed the question of whether a woman raped by a family member should have the right to abort the baby, Rees-Mogg stated, “My personal opinion is that life begins at conception and abortion is morally indefensible.”

But the non-Catholic majority will feel no obligation to pay any attention to Rees-Mogg’s private religious opinions. These comments show an inability to distinguish between matters of faith and those of natural law. Even a non-Catholic nation is obliged to ensure that its laws are in keeping with the natural law: for Rees-Mogg to cede that ground, and make out that his “controversial views” about the latter are based solely on his religion, is to make a mockery of both faith and reason.

Various pro-abortion and pro-LGBT outfits criticized Rees-Mogg for his interventions. But his comments were similarly the subject of very critical sermons in at least two Traditional Latin Mass churches in London that weekend. Bourne also reported the following from Dr. Joseph Shaw, the chairman of the Latin Mass Society:

Shaw said it was a serious mistake for Rees-Mogg to distinguish abortion and same-sex “marriage” on the basis that gay “marriage” is a private matter and abortion one of public justice. He also took issue with Rees-Mogg’s appeals to Church teaching as though these issues were a matter of ecclesiastical law or faith, as opposed to natural law.

Rees-Mogg and congratulating same-sex ‘parents’

Despite his consistent voting record against LGBT issues, Rees-Mogg was extremely enthusiastic about Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson – who was at that time “engaged” to her partner Jen Wilson – expecting a child.

Speaking to broadcaster Kay Burley, Rees-Mogg said of Davidson’s news:

I meant to write to her, I haven’t yet done it. I think it’s wonderful news. It’s absolutely joyous news. And I love the statement that was reported, that she said she couldn’t keep it secret because she was so excited, she wanted to tell everybody. Which is exactly what I felt when all my children have been on their way, and there’s the period when you’re not allowed to say, under strict orders. And I’ve always found that very hard, and when Ruth Davidson said that, I thought, I know exactly what you mean. I think it’s a wonderful, happy news, and a new life always is.

Burley asked him:

Potentially goes a little against your religious beliefs?

The following exchange ensued:

Rees-Mogg: “New life is always good news.”

Burley: “Potentially goes a little—”

Rees–Mogg: “No it doesn’t! No, no. You’re confusing things.”

Burley: “Explain it to me.”

Rees-Mogg: “The Catholic Church is always in favour of new life. There is a new baby: this is wonderful news. A new soul; this is terrific. There’s no problem with that.”

Burley: “So you’re—”

Rees-Mogg: “You’re going back to what happened to create that new life. That doesn’t matter: there is now a new life, and that is of overwhelming importance, and a matter of great joy.”

Without entering into the details of the issue, we can simply observe that Rees-Mogg was speaking in such terms, and with such warm enthusiasm, about a child who would be raised by a same-sex “couple,” rather than with his mother and father or in the context of a natural marriage.

Conclusion

“It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines,” some may say, “but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?”

This is the objection presented by Don Félix Sardà y Salvany, in his classic 1886 work El Liberalismo es Pecado (Liberalism is a Sin). This work was strongly commended by Father Jerome Secheri, O.P., secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Index in Rome. Here is the answer given to this objection by the author:

We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.…

In order to combat and discredit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them.…

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person.

To that end let us recall that, in this essay, we have seen that Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has:

• Strongly praised David Cameron as “the most Christian Prime minister in 50 years,” despite him bringing in same-sex “marriage”;
• Denied the teaching of the 19th century popes on the relations between the Church and state, despite presenting himself their admirer;
• Strongly praised Boris Johnson as “the most naturally freedom-loving prime minister we could think of having,” despite Johnson locking down the country during COVID, while hypocritically flouting his own regulations, and raising the possibility of mandatory vaccination;
• Voted in favour of the suppression of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during the November 2020 lockdown, with draconian penalties for priests who disobeyed, and flouting his own government’s “tier system”;
• Reduced serious moral issues of abortion and same-sex unions to the spheres of religion and his personal opinion;
• Presented the Church’s stance on the sanctity of life in a seriously confused way, such that he conveys approval for children being raised by same-sex “couples.”

Rees-Mogg’s cultivated persona is one of respect for tradition, faith, and decency. He is now employing this persona in order to prime British men and women to “do their duty,” in the face of the supposed threat of invasion of our nation – even while the U.K. Parliament reports that at least 205,000 migrants (or rather, as Rees-Mogg suggested on the day of publication, potential Englishmen) have illegally entered the U.K. by small boats in the period from 2018 to June 2026.

This is the man who is at present throwing his moral support and prestige as a refined and traditional Catholic gentleman behind the possibility of war with Russia, conscription, the deaths of British men and women, the suspension of habeas corpus, and the imprisonment of dissidents.

As should be clear, this moral support and prestige are an illusion.

Postscript

In 1939, Sister Lucia of Fatima said:

War or peace in the world depends on the practice of this devotion (the first Saturdays), together with the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; that is why I long so much for its propagation, and especially because it is the will of our Good God and our beloved Mother in Heaven.

The means given by Our Lady of Fatima to achieve this peace are very clear: on the part of the hierarchy, Russia must be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart by a pope and the bishops in union with him. On the part of the laity, we are to carry out the First Saturday Devotions – that is, on the First Saturday of each month we do the following:

• Go to confession,
• Receive Holy Communion,
• Say five decades of the Rosary,
• Spend 15 minutes meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary.

Each of these four acts must be carried out in a spirit of reparation for sins against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

You can read about this in more detail here.

Share