THE
P RTAL
April 2019
Page 23
Letters to the Editor
From Andrew Bowyer
I always read Fr Ashley Beck’s articles on Catholic
social teaching with interest. However, one thing we
converts from Anglicanism have brought with us -
one of the valuable, if more intangible elements of
Anglican patrimony, perhaps - is a healthy scepticism
of clerics who seek to dress their personal opinions as
doctrinal truths. Put simply: Brexit is not contrary to
Catholic teaching.
What the Catechism does acknowledge is the
right of nations to self-determination. It is right
and good that nations co-operate; but co-operation
presupposes the wherewithal sovereignty to do so. It
is not clear to me how an exclusive, self-serving, rich
white men’s club such as the EU fulfils this part of the
cardinal commandment to love one another. Brexit is
an opportunity for horizons to be widened.
Historically, the idolatrous worship of the state has
been a problem of empires as much as of individual
nations - arguably more so in the former case, because
checks are fewer and power more remote. One has
only to think of the Roman Imperium, the German
Reich or the Soviet Union. The EU is similar in that
it is essentially a techno-bureaucratic empire, with a
huge democratic deficit at its heart. If we don’t like
Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn, we can vote them out;
we cannot do anything about Jean-Claude Juncker.
Fr Beck acknowledges that the EU is not without
fault. Well, yes, and an array of contenders of all
nationalities and shades of political opinion will
vouch for that - the bullying, the corruption and the
lack of accountability (both political and financial)
- plus the EU’s propensity for breaking its own rules
when it suits..
It should be remembered that, if the referendum
had been conducted on a constituency basis, there
would have been a very comfortable pro-Brexit
parliamentary majority of 168. This is because the
Remain vote was concentrated in relatively few areas,
whereas the Leave vote was far more widespread.
What does this say?
Fr Beck alludes to a racist appeal among benighted
northern voters. Yet the elephant in the room - the
upsurge in vile anti-Semitism - has not been among
Brexit-supporting groups, and some of the concern
about the free movement of Romanian criminal
gangs has been among our law-abiding communities
of Pakistani heritage.
In sum: it is patronising nonsense to “explain” how
the majority voted by ruling out principled decision.
Imagine explaining the Remain vote as due to a
concern for a continued supply of cheap labour, or
one’s holiday home in the Dordogne.
Condescending, isn’t it? I would not wish to be so
dismissive - though, as the artist Grayson Perry has
shown in his one-man show: the Remain map is very
similar to that of areas boasting a Prêt à Manger!
Andrew Bowyer
Manchester Group
Address supplied
From Nicolas Olivant
Is it possible with a good conscience to try to
overthrow the result of the Brexit Referendum? As
Catholics, we have to engage in the democratic
process with care and thought. Making decisions
based on misinformation and propaganda is clearly
not consistent with our responsibilities as Catholics.
In the matter of Brexit, there are clearly many
contradictory opinions about the economic aspects of
the process.
This is no different from choosing governments in
the course of a General Election. Each person has to
vote according to his or her conscience. However, the
other aspect of Brexit relates to the European Union
and its policies, the so-called European Project. It is
clear that the EU is a secular project totally divorced
from any connection with the Catholic Church. The
promotion of abortion and euthanasia, especially
in Belgium and the Netherlands, is contrary to all
teaching of the Catholic Church.
In general, the EU promotes a social agenda which
is almost always in conflict with the teachings of
the Church. The negative social effects of very high
youth unemployment in Spain, Italy, Portugal and
Greece cannot be said to be in any way in accordance
with Catholic teaching. Of course, the British
Government cannot be described as anything but
secular in the most fundamental way. However,
that does not seem to me to a good argument for
supporting the aggressively secular aims of the
European Project.
Nicolas Olivant
(By e-mail)
The views expressed in these letters are not necessarily those of the Editors
Letters for publication should be sent to:
The Editors, T he P ortal , 56 Woodlands Farm Road,
Birmingham B24 0PG
[email protected]