Liberal lawmaker melts down after priest stands firm, denies him communion over deadly bill



A Catholic priest in England reportedly warned a Liberal Democrat member of parliament in his parish that he would be refused communion should he vote in favor of the United Kingdom's controversial assisted suicide bill.

Despite this warning, Chris Coghlan voted in favor of the bill on June 20 and claimed he did so in accordance with his "conscience."

While Coghlan underscored in a Saturday op-ed that his faith is irrelevant to his parliamentary responsibilities, Father Ian Vane of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Dorking, England, indicated that the liberal's political decisions were very much relevant to whether he could receive the Eucharist.

'Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder.'

After learning that he would be denied communion — evidently not in person, as the Observer indicated the lawmaker didn't even show up to the relevant masses — Coghlan had an ugly meltdown online, calling the priest's actions "outrageous"; accusing Fr. Vane of "completely inappropriate interference in democracy"; filing a complaint with Bishop Richard Moth, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton, who publicly campaigned against the bill; and suggesting lawmakers' faith should be publicly considered when they vote on matters of possible relevance.

"I was deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner,'" Coghlan noted in his op-ed. "Worse, I would be complicit in a 'murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.' Such a vote would, he wrote, be 'a clear contravention of the Church’s teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church.'"

Coghlan suggested that the priest was in the wrong and had wrongly characterized so-called "assisted dying" as a "murderous act."

While the leftist lawmaker indicated his faith was "profoundly important" to him, he appears to have greatly misunderstood or altogether missed the church's unwavering moral stances on euthanasia and suicide.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that "intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator."

The Catechism also states that "suicide is seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity" and is "forbidden by the fifth commandment."

RELATED: Martyrs don’t bend the knee — even to the state

 Carl Court/Getty Images

Canon 915 in the Code of Canon Law forbids the administration of communion to those who obstinately persevere "in manifest grave sin."

One year prior to becoming pope in 2005, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger signed a memorandum on the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith clarifying that:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

In other words, Fr. Vane did exactly as expected by the church and echoed the Catholic Church's longstanding moral teaching when warning then admonishing Coghlan.

In advance of the parliamentary vote on the legislation, Bishop Moth, the recipient of Coghlan's complaint, encouraged Catholics in his diocese to "pray earnestly that the dignity of human life is respected from the moment of conception to natural death" and to urge their members of parliament to vote against the bill.

"While the proposed legislation may offer assurances of safeguards, the evidence is clear that, in those countries such as Canada and Belgium (to take just two examples) where legislation approving 'assisted dying' is in place, it takes little time before the criteria for 'assisted dying' expand, often including those living with mental illness and others who do not have a terminal diagnosis," wrote Moth.

Despite being framed as a "stringently limited, carefully monitored system of exceptions" around the time of its legalization in 2016, state-facilitated suicide is now a leading cause of death in Canada, accounting for 4.7% of all Canadian deaths last year.

As Moth indicated, so-called medical assistance in dying in Canada is not just killing moribund people, but individuals who could otherwise live for years or decades, as well as victims whose primary symptom is suicidal ideation.

After parliament voted 314 to 291 in favor of changing British law to legalize assisted suicide earlier this month, Catholic Archbishop John Sherrington, lead bishop for life issues for the Catholic Bishop's Conference, reiterated the church's opposition to the legalization of assisted suicide, noting, "We are shocked and disappointed that MPs have voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. This Bill is flawed in principle with several provisions that give us great cause for concern."

Coghlan claimed that after the vote, his priest "publicly announced at mass that he was indeed denying me holy communion as I had breached canon law."

'There is no in-between. Choose.'

The leftist politician continued complaining on X, writing, "It is a matter of grave public interest the extent to which religious MPs came under pressure to represent their religion and not necessarily their constituents in the assisted dying vote."

"This was utterly disrespectful to my family, my constituents including the congregation, and the democratic process. My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP representing all my constituents without fear or favour," added Coghlan.

Blaze News reached out to Fr. Vane for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

In addition to stressing that religion should effectively be neutralized in public so that Britain could "be a secular country" — par for the course in a nation where silent prayer can already result in a criminal record — Coghlan suggested that lawmakers' faith should be publicized and taken into account when relevant to parliamentary votes.

RELATED: Delaware assisted-suicide law promotes 'death culture,' attacks life's sanctity and medical ethics

 Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

"Constituents’ [sic] absolutely should know if an MP is of faith on a conscience vote and is obliged by their faith to vote a certain way and/or is under pressure from religious authorities from their faith to do so. It is potentially a clear conflict of interest with putting their constituents first," wrote Coghlan.

The Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton told the Observer in a statement, "Bishop Richard spoke to Mr. Coghlan earlier this week and has offered to meet him in person to discuss the issues and concerns raised."

While the leftist lawmaker received an outpouring of support online from secularists, he was also met with biting criticism from orthodox Christians.

Dr. Chad Pecknold, associated professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America, noted, "Mr. Coghlan, I've taught Christianity and Politics for many years. What you express is not a Catholic but a Liberal view that your faith should be something private. Western civilization was built upon the very public nature of Christianity. Your faith is either Liberal, and you have owned it, or your Faith is Catholic, and you have denied it. There is no in-between. Choose."

"Good work by this priest," wrote Fr. Matthew Schneider, a priest with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi. "If you are not a devout member of a Church, it should not matter if you receive Communion. If you are a devout member, your faith should penetrate your life enough to vote in accord with common good, & not for murdering the sick & disabled."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

BBC anchor finally says the simple truth about 'pregnant people'



BBC News host Martine Croxall went rogue when quoting a professor live on air, with insiders saying times have changed at the British network.

Croxall was introducing a segment on the number of possible deaths during the current heat wave in the region and, after a live report from a colleague, began quoting an alleged expert about at-risk individuals.

'You'd better not be in any trouble ...'

Quoting assistant professor Dr. Malcolm Mistry from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Croxall relayed the information before stopping mid-sentence to correct some ideological terminology.

"Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people — women — and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions."

Croxall's wide-eyed delivery of the word "women" defied the woke culture that has choked Britain for years, with even insider reports claiming the tables have turned within the BBC, as well.

RELATED: I was separated from my mom because Ireland enforced its laws

 

  

 

Outlet Deadline spoke to sources from inside BBC's walls who said that while the company does not insist on a particular term to refer to "pregnant women," the employees do not predict Croxall will be punished for the correction.

"Other insiders said it was highly unlikely that Croxall would be reprimanded over the matter," Deadline's Jake Kanter wrote. "These employees pointed to the U.K. Supreme Court ruling in April, which said that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex."

Deadline also said insiders reported that since a BBC radio host was punished in 2024 for saying "transwomen" are "males," other employees had become sour toward the company.

"I think the fallout made them think: This is mad," a Deadline source revealed.

RELATED: Michelle Obama makes bizarre pro-abortion argument: The 'least' of what the female body does 'is produce life'

You’d better not be in any trouble…
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 23, 2025
 

Croxall posted a screenshot of her broadcast on X and remarked that she had seen an influx of followers since her comment aired.

"A huge thank you to everyone who has chosen to follow me today for whatever reason. It’s been quite a ride," Croxall told her now 135,000 followers.

Praise immediately came from prominent personalities, such as "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who called Croxall her new favorite anchor.

"I have a new favourite BBC presenter," Rowling wrote on X, as she shared the snippet.

The next day, Rowling replied to Croxall directly and warned the powers that be about possibly punishing her.

"You'd better not be in any trouble …," Rowling wrote.

The storyteller has been a prominent voice for women in the U.K. in the fight against men in women's clothing invading female spaces. Rowling dared police to arrest her in April over complaints that she noted that a transgender woman is a man; the police soon backed down.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

With Abortion And Euthanasia Votes, The U.K. Rejects The Basis Of Every Human Freedom

Once a nation ceases to respect the source of human dignity, it doesn't take long to stop respecting the rights that dignity demands.

The Same Country That Prohibits And Prosecutes Silent Prayer Now Poised To Permit Abortion Until Birth

The same country that has repeatedly weaponized its anti-free speech laws to prosecute Christians for praying silently near abortion facilities went to great lengths this week to permit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. The House of Commons overwhelmingly voted on Tuesday to pass an amendment that would legalize abortion until birth across England […]

Scotland bans men from women's bathrooms in parliament — 'male' and 'female' will refer to biological sex only



Scottish parliament has banned men from women's restrooms in a swift move after its Supreme Court upheld accurate definitions of gender in a recent ruling.

The parliament building, known as the Holyrood, declared bathrooms designated "male" or "female" will refer to biological sex only, as opposed to the gender identity and/or delusion of any individual.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body made the announcement after the U.K. Supreme Court upheld a definition of sex from the 2010 Equality Act.

"This examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words 'sex,' 'woman' and 'man' in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man," the court noted in an 88-page ruling.

'It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland's democracy.'

Presiding officer Alison Johnstone said the move was to ensure "confidence, privacy and dignity" for staff and visitors. The SPCB declared the changes were to be immediate and that they were practical and made at a "minimal cost."

Three more existing public restrooms will be designated as gender-neutral bathrooms, in addition to female-only and male-only bathrooms, among other accessibility- and disability-related bathrooms.

Johnstone said it was important to take such steps after the latest ruling and added that parliament needed to fulfill its legal responsibilities sooner rather than later.

"Such clarity is an important element in offering all individuals confidence, privacy and dignity when using our facilities," she explained. "Everyone working in, or visiting, Holyrood should feel welcome in the building and be confident there is a suitable facility for them."

Tess White, a conservative politician and minister for women and equalities, pressured the leader of the country, known as the first minister, to implement the same rules nationwide.

"If the Scottish Parliament can respond to the Supreme Court judgment so swiftly, there is no excuse for [First Minister] John Swinney to keep dragging his heels."

White continued, "He must instruct all public bodies to uphold the law immediately instead of pandering to gender extremists."

Predictably, pro-trans activist groups in Scotland were not pleased with the decision.

The Scottish Trans and Equality Network called the decision "rushed, unworkable and exclusionary," according to the BBC.

Manager of the organization Scottish Trans, Vic Valentine, who uses "they/them" pronouns, claimed not to be able to "understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring 'confidence, privacy and dignity' to everyone."

Valentine claimed it would not bring any of those things for transgender people, but that it would cause segregation in Scotland's most important institutions.

"It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland's democracy."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump Announces U.K. Trade Deal Hours After Media Predict Failure

When President Donald Trump announced tariffs on most countries, the propaganda press reported that he was dangerously offending allied nations like the United Kingdom. The sky was falling. It would be a disaster! And while they doubted much good would come of Trump’s strategy to renegotiate U.S. trade agreements, the media complained it was taking […]

Trump unveils first trade deal with UK, securing major milestone amid tariff uncertainty



President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with the United Kingdom on Thursday, on the 80-year anniversary of Victory Day, marking the first trade deal of his second term.

This trade deal comes just a month after the administration first implemented tariffs on dozens of foreign countries aimed at renegotiating trade deals that are more advantageous to America.

Both Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that while the groundwork for the trade deal has been laid out, some of the details are still being finalized.

"With this deal, the U.K. joins the United States in affirming that reciprocity and fairness is an essential and vital principle of international trade," Trump said. "The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all products produced by our great farmers."

"In addition, the U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products," Trump added. "This is now turning out, I think, really, to be a great deal for both countries."

Trump also noted that the U.K. was previously "a little closed" toward the United States, saying the trade deal will now reopen and even expedite trade between the two countries.

"They'll also be fast-tracking American goods through their customs process so our exports go to a very, very quick form of approval, and there won't be any red tape," Trump said. "Things are going to move very quickly both ways."

"Furthermore, in a historic step, the deal includes plans that will bring the United Kingdom into the economic security alignment with the United States," Trump said. "That's the first of its kind. So we have a big economic security blanket."

Both Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that while the groundwork for the trade deal has been laid out, some of the details are still being finalized.

"We can finish ironing out some of the details," Starmer said over the phone during Trump's press conference.

"The final details are being written up in the coming weeks," Trump added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Researchers advocate using existing aircraft, sulfur to block sunlight amid UK-backed trials



A study published Monday in the American Geophysical Union's peer-reviewed journal Earth's Future suggested, largely on the basis of different aerosol injection simulations, that it might be worthwhile using existing commercial jetliners to pollute the skies with toxic sulfur dioxide particles in order to dim the sun and thereby cool the planet.

Researchers from University College London indicated that weaponizing jets like the Boeing 777F — roughly 36 of which are produced a year — against the sun would would mean "lower technical barriers," a potential increase in "the number of actors able to produce a substantial global cooling using SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection]," and an earlier potential start date for this master plan.

They acknowledged, however, that the use of existing aircraft for the purposes of SAI would be less efficient than having specialized aircraft flying at altitudes of over 12 miles to conduct dumps and more likely to generate undesirable side effects.

'Dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins.'

According to the study, "Low-altitude SAI with high-latitude and seasonal injection, could achieve a substantial global cooling effect using existing large jetliners with a service ceiling of 13 km."

The researchers estimated "a global cooling of 0.6°C for an injection of 12 Tg at 13 km altitude at 60° North and South, in the local spring and summer." In other words, climate meddlers might be able to cool the planet down just over half a degree with a seasonal dumping of over 13.2 million tons of sulfur at the latitudes of Anchorage, Alaska, and the southern tip of South America.

In effect, they would be emulating the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, which injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and caused a rapid half-degree drop in global temperatures. According to NASA, this drop lasted for two years until the sulfate dropped out of the atmosphere.

"We find this strategy would have only 35% of the forcing efficiency of a conventional high-altitude-subtropical injection, which would lead to a proportionate increase in the side-effects of SAI per unit cooling, such as human exposure to descending particulate matter," wrote the researchers.

In addition to "dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins," as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put it last month, the embrace of this strategy might increase the "risk of unilateral or poorly planned deployment," said the researchers.

Dozens of U.S. states have taken steps to ban geoengineering and weather modification activities. Earlier this month, the Florida Senate passed legislation that would protect the Sunshine State's skies from climate alarmists' shadowy designs. The United Kingdom has gone in the other direction.

Blaze News recently reported that the U.K. is throwing its approval and weight behind solar geoengineering experiments to be conducted by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.

'That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature.'

Even with America's geoengineering bans, the homeland could potentially be impacted by foreign SAI experiments should the U.K. or another national entity decide to unilaterally execute SAI operations ahead of schedule, thanks to the embrace of modified jetliners.

A 2017 study published in Nature Communications indicated that SAI only in the northern hemisphere might increase droughts, hurricanes, and storms elsewhere, and concluded that "the impacts of SG would not be entirely confined to the perturbed region."

Lead author Alistair Duffey on the new study in Earth's Future told Phys.org, "Solar geoengineering comes with serious risks and much more research is needed to understand its impacts. However, our study suggests that it is easier to cool the planet with this particular intervention than we thought. This has implications for how quickly stratospheric aerosol injection could be started and by who."

"There are downsides to this polar low-altitude strategy," continued Duffey. "At this lower altitude, stratospheric aerosol injection is about one-third as effective. That means that we would need to use three times the amount of aerosol to have the same effect on global temperature, increasing side effects such as acid rain. The strategy would also be less effective at cooling the tropics, where the direct vulnerability to warming is highest."

Duffey added that "climate change is a serious problem," intimating that policymakers might weight the perceived threat of changing weather patterns as more concerning than the threats posed dumping chemicals overhead and generating acidic precipitation.

Columbia University's Climate School noted last April, "Studies show that stratospheric aerosol injection could weaken the stratospheric ozone layer, alter precipitation patterns, and affect agriculture, ecosystem services, marine life, and air quality. Moreover, the impacts and risks would vary by how and where it is deployed, the climate, ecosystems, and the population."

Matthew Henry of the University of Exeter, one of Duffey's co-authors, made clear to Phys.org that even with solar geoengineering, climate alarmists will still want to continue with their project of social engineering: "Stratospheric aerosol injection is certainly not a replacement for greenhouse gas emission reductions as any potential negative side effects increase with the amount of cooling: we can only achieve long-term climate stability with net zero."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Showering is not an entitlement': Tennis anti-doping unit announces players must shower 'in full view' of officials



Tennis' leader in anti-doping and anti-corruption said players are not permitted to have a shower before a drug test.

The International Tennis Integrity Unit covers policy, sanctions, prohibition, and testing for doping in tennis, and it recently announced a change to its policy that had many fans asking questions.

The ITIA informed players on Friday that drug testing will be conducted immediately following matches and that if a player wishes to shower before the drug test, he or she will have to do so in front of a drug-testing official.

The new rule was shared by Tennis Channel reporter Jon Wertheim, who showed a snippet of a letter from the ITIA on his X page.

"On behalf of the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), we are sharing important updates to the Tennis Anti-Doping Program," the letter stated, before introducing a subsection on "showering,"

"The ITIA and previously the ITF has worked hard to ensure that showers following matches can amount to a permissible delay to doping control, particularly when showering could have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of a player."

The letter continued, "However, showering is not an entitlement, and it is for this reason that the ITIA kindly requests that when showering[,] players adhere to the requirement to stay in full view of the chaperone observing them at all times."

The letter added that if a player is not comfortable with being monitored while showering, the player should consider the idea of whether or not a shower is "necessary before providing a doping control sample. Failure to remain in full view of the chaperone will be taken extremely seriously by the ITIA."

— (@)  
 

After the seemingly bizarre wording of the policy received publicity, the ITIA reaffirmed its stance in a follow-up statement.

"We recognise that parts of the anti-doping testing process are uncomfortable," the group said. "However, as with all World Anti-Doping Agency-compliant sports — not just tennis — players who are notified for a test after a match are observed at all times by an anti-doping chaperone until the test is completed."

The group added, "This is a requirement of the World Anti-Doping Code."

While the policy sounded strange on its surface, it did have a certain level of logic behind it. As outlet Metro noted, soccer's governing body in the region, the Professional Footballers' Association, has a similar policy in place with an added explanation:

"It is important for the laboratory to analyse your first sample and by having a shower a player could urinate easily without anyone noticing."

The organization added, "Sports people have done this before in order to manipulate this seemingly insignificant procedure to avoid a positive result."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Men banned from women's competitions by UK pool association just weeks after 2 males competed in women's final



A U.K. billiards association has reversed course and banned men from women's competitions just weeks after two males dominated a women's tournament.

The Ultimate Pool Group's Women's Pro Series Event 2 robbed headlines around the world at the beginning of April when two males met in the finals of the women's tournament. Harriet Haynes and Lucy Smith, both males, each beat four women to reach the finals of the 32-player tournament in Wigan, England. Haynes was the eventual winner and was reported to have a .750 career winning percentage, while Smith had won 85 of his last 113 matches, a near identical percentage.

As of April 23 however, Ultimate Pool announced it would officially amend its eligibility rules to state that "women's events are open only to biologically born women."

"We respect that some people within the pool community may find the changes challenging. As an organisation, we are committed to being empathetic to all members of our community and we expect all members of our community to reflect this," the group wrote on X. "In recognition of the challenges that some members of our community may face we have partnered with Omnia Health Group to offer support to anyone who feels they might benefit from it."

— (@)  
 

'Female players have unique disadvantages compared to male players ...'

On its website, the organization said it had reached its conclusion due to two factors. The first was a commissioned report that concluded there are indeed "biological differences between women born as women and transgender women" and that pool is a "gender affected sport."

"... Female players have unique disadvantages compared to male players and ... transgender women retain male advantages."

The second factor was the recent decision by the United Kingdom's Supreme Court, which clarified the definition of a woman from the U.K.'s 2010 Equality Act.

"This examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words 'sex,' 'woman' and 'man' in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man," the court said.

Ultimate Pool stated that the ruling had brought the organization "clarity" and further decided that "trans women cannot take part in women's sport."

The governing body therefore concluded that males would not be eligible for women's pool events and are not eligible to be selected for international events in the female category.

The next UPG event, for women only (for real this time), takes place May 23-25.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!