Category: Featured

The Darlington Nurses and the Defence of Women’s Dignity

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

It began, as many moral crises do, with something small — a room, a rule, and a refusal to be silent. At Darlington Memorial Hospital in County Durham, a group of women working in one of Britain’s most trusted public institutions found that the ordinary expectation of modesty and safety could no longer be taken for granted. When a male colleague identifying as female began to use the women’s changing room — despite confirming that he was not taking hormones and was trying to conceive a child with his girlfriend — the women raised concerns. They did not call for punishment, only for privacy. But management’s response was to order them to undergo “re-education,” to expand their “mindset” and become more “inclusive.”¹

When twenty-six nurses signed a collective letter to human resources, they were removed from their own changing area and assigned to a converted office that opened directly onto a public corridor. The new space, they said, was degrading, exposed, and humiliating. One of the nurses, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, later described suffering panic attacks at the thought of changing in front of a biological male.² What began as a question of policy soon became a question of conscience.

The women sought help from the Christian Legal Centre, which began representing them in what is now an active employment tribunal case alleging harassment, indirect discrimination, and breach of workplace safety regulations.³ Their stand quickly drew public sympathy as ordinary people recognised in their plight something emblematic of a wider unease: the steady dismantling of boundaries once considered self-evident — between man and woman, truth and fiction, reality and ideology.

The nurses’ case inspired a petition launched by CitizenGO under the title Stand with Darlington Nurses for Safe Spaces for Women.⁴ The petition calls for government and NHS leaders to reaffirm women’s legal right to single-sex changing rooms and toilets, grounded in biological sex rather than subjective identity. By the end of 2024, nearly 50,000 people had signed, transforming what began as a local workplace dispute into a national cause.⁵ It stands now as a rallying point for those who refuse to see womanhood reduced to a feeling or belief.

On 28 October 2024, representatives of the nurses met with Health Secretary Wes Streeting in Whitehall to deliver the petition in person. Streeting, though a Labour minister, spoke with unexpected candour. “Sex is biological,” he said, “and single-sex spaces matter.”⁶ It was a rare moment in British politics — an acknowledgment that compassion cannot be divorced from truth. Yet it also highlighted the contradiction now at the heart of public policy: the attempt to uphold women’s rights while redefining what a woman is.

At issue is not mere etiquette but the law itself. Under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” and “gender reassignment” are both protected characteristics. NHS trusts have adopted internal policies allowing employees to use the facilities of their chosen gender identity, claiming to act in compliance with equality duties. Yet the same law allows for single-sex services and spaces “if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”⁷ Recent judgments — including rulings cited by the Supreme Court and the Scottish appeals process — have reaffirmed that the term “woman” in legislation refers to biological sex, not self-identification.⁸ The contradiction, therefore, lies not in the law but in its misapplication.

For the Darlington nurses, this is not an abstract legal puzzle but a daily moral trial. They have spoken of losing faith in their profession’s leadership, of being mocked as “bigots,” and of finding solace only in the solidarity of their colleagues and the prayers of strangers. Their testimony cuts through the euphemisms of officialdom: they are not asking for privilege, only for the restoration of common sense — that women should not be compelled to undress beside men, however they identify.

The Trust’s “Transitioning in the Workplace” policy, which first allowed the disputed access, remains under review.⁹ The Health and Safety Executive’s 1992 regulations require employers to provide separate facilities for men and women unless private single cubicles are available.¹⁰ Yet such statutory safeguards mean little when administrators, afraid of controversy, interpret every protest as prejudice. In this sense, the Darlington affair reveals more than one institution’s confusion; it exposes the moral cowardice of a nation that no longer believes it may distinguish between truth and error without apology.

The Christian understanding of the body as a revelation of divine order offers an antidote to such confusion. “Male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27) is not a social construct but a statement of ontology. From this truth flow the principles of modesty, privacy, and respect — not as concessions to fragility but as protections of human dignity. A society that denies these foundations cannot long defend the vulnerable, for it loses the very language of protection. When the nurses of Darlington refused to be silent, they acted not merely as employees defending workplace rights, but as witnesses to a deeper reality: that compassion divorced from truth becomes cruelty disguised as care.

To sign the petition in solidarity with these women is not an act of partisanship, but of conscience. It is a declaration that biological truth and moral integrity are not negotiable, that every woman deserves safety and dignity in her workplace, and that society must not sacrifice reality to ideology. The quiet courage of these nurses invites each of us to stand with them — for when truth is silenced in the hospital, it will soon be silenced everywhere.

In every age there are those who stand quietly against the prevailing wind, reminding the world that conscience still breathes beneath the bureaucracy. The Darlington nurses did not seek fame, yet their steadfastness has compelled both politicians and citizens to confront the consequences of ideological conformity. Whether their legal case succeeds or fails, their example has already begun to restore moral clarity. For in defending the meaning of womanhood, they have defended the very notion that truth can still be spoken without fear.

  1. Christian Concern, Safe Spaces for Women: Nurses Meet with Health Secretary, 2024.
  2. Christian Concern, Darlington Nurses Given “Dehumanising” Changing Room, 2024.
  3. Christian Legal Centre, Case File: Darlington Nurses, 2024.
  4. CitizenGO, Stand with Darlington Nurses for Safe Spaces for Women, accessed October 2025.
  5. Christian Concern, Safe Spaces for Women: Nurses Meet with Health Secretary, 2024.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Equality Act 2010, c. 15, Schedule 3, Part 7, s. 26.
  8. For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2022] CSIH 4; Re Sex Matters [2023] UKSC 33.
  9. The Times, “NHS Trust Policy Allowed Biological Men to Use Women’s Changing Room,” 2 Nov 2024.
  10. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3004, Reg. 20.

A Primer for Catholic Parents: The Principles of Catholic Teaching on “Sex Education”

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

The Parental Duty in Catholic Education
When Catholic parents entrust their children to schools established by the Church, they rightly expect that the instruction provided will be faithful to Catholic doctrine. This duty extends not only to the moral content of teaching but also to the subjects taught. The Church has always upheld a clear and comprehensive body of doctrine, transmitted from the apostles, against which mere human theories or social trends hold no weight. Yet in many Catholic schools today, especially in the West, civil authorities have pressured educational institutions to adopt programmes of so-called “sex education” that conflict with both divine and natural law.

The Primary Educators of the Child
It is indeed necessary that children, at an appropriate time, be instructed about the realities of human reproduction and the moral obligations that accompany these truths. However, the responsibility for this instruction belongs to parents alone. This duty is given directly by God and cannot be rightfully taken over by the state, by educators, or even by bishops. Parents may, for practical reasons, delegate certain aspects of education—such as mathematics or science—to others who possess the requisite expertise, but this delegation always proceeds from the authority of the parents and remains under their supervision.¹

The Limits of Delegation
The Church teaches that parents, strengthened by the grace of the sacrament of marriage, have the responsibility and privilege of evangelising their children and forming them in virtue.² Teachers, priests, and catechists share in this mission only insofar as parents freely authorise them to assist in what properly belongs to the family. Certain subjects—such as the training in personal virtue, purity, and moral discernment—cannot be delegated. The state may require that citizens be educated for civic duties, but its jurisdiction ends where the intimate and moral formation of the child begins.

The Superiority of the Family over the State
The Church firmly rejects any attempt by governments to replace or control parental authority. Leo XIII warns that when the state “sets aside the parent and sets up a State supervision,” it violates natural justice and destroys the structure of the home.³ The Catechism reminds us that the family is the primary school of solidarity and virtue, and that parents must protect their children from “compromising and degrading influences.”⁴ Indeed, Leo XIII affirms that the family is “a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State.”⁵

This principle is also recognised in civil law. The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly protects the rights of parents to educate their children in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions (Article 2, Protocol 1) and recognises family life as a sphere of privacy and protection against state interference (Article 8). These provisions reflect what the Church has always taught—that the family possesses rights anterior to the State, grounded in natural law and divine order.

Moral and Practical Formation
Parents naturally instruct their children in language, manners, modesty, and virtue. To neglect these areas or to surrender them to institutions is to abdicate a sacred trust. Among these responsibilities lies the duty to educate children about human reproduction and sexuality—matters that require both moral maturity and personal sensitivity. No classroom teacher can judge with precision the appropriate time or method for every child, since these depend upon individual development, temperament, and grace.

Cautions on Implementation and Parental Vigilance
In recent years, Catholic-approved Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) programmes—such as Life to the Full by Ten Ten Resources—have been widely adopted, reportedly by the majority of Catholic schools in England and Wales.⁶ While the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW) and the Catholic Education Service (CES) state that RSE should promote chastity, dignity, and respect for life, traditional Catholic commentators have expressed serious concerns about the way such programmes are implemented.

Traditionalists, including the Society of Saint Pius X (UK District), warn that some RSE programmes risk undermining the parental role and present sexuality in an overly naturalistic or psychological manner, divorced from the supernatural virtue of chastity.⁷ They argue that materials sometimes prioritise “risk mitigation” or “self-esteem” over moral formation and fail to acknowledge humanity’s wounded nature and need for grace.⁸ The danger, they note, is that RSE lessons become exercises in information rather than formation—transmitting biological facts without grounding them in moral and theological truth.

Scholars examining traditional Catholic resistance to sex education likewise record the same concern: that Catholic schools, even when guided by Church documents, can inadvertently “supplant rather than supplement” the parental role.⁹ In mixed or collective settings, discussions of sexuality risk becoming occasions of curiosity or embarrassment rather than of virtue. The Church has consistently warned against “collective or public sex education” that ignores the discretion and modesty owed to each child’s stage of development.¹⁰

When RSE Becomes a Contravention of Parental Rights
In principle, Relationships and Sex Education can be delivered within Catholic schools without violating parental rights. However, in practice, such rights are frequently compromised or constrained by state mandates and the secular assumptions underlying modern educational frameworks.

RSE contravenes parental rights when it:

  • introduces sexual or moral content without parental knowledge or consent;
  • normalises behaviours contrary to Catholic moral teaching, such as contraception, cohabitation, or same-sex acts;
  • pre-empts parental judgment about a child’s readiness for such instruction;
  • or discourages withdrawal through social pressure or institutional policy.

These practices directly violate both the natural-law right of parents to form their children in moral truth and the legal right protected under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees education in conformity with parental convictions.¹³ They also conflict with the Church’s explicit teaching that “it is incumbent on parents to strain every nerve to ward off such an outrage, and to hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring.”¹²

The Poison of Naturalism
The recurring fault identified by traditional Catholic critics is the persistence of naturalism—the belief that moral formation can be achieved through reason or social conditioning alone, without recourse to divine grace. As Pius XI explains, such approaches “refuse to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature” and disregard “the means of grace” by which purity is preserved.¹¹ The Church teaches that because fallen man bears the wounds of original sin—ignorance, malice, weakness, and concupiscence—mere human instruction cannot preserve chastity without spiritual formation and sacramental life.

Parental Vigilance and Partnership
For this reason, parents must be vigilant regarding what is taught in the name of “Catholic education.” They should review all RSE materials used by their children’s schools, exercise their right to consultation and, if necessary, withdraw their children from any lessons inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. True partnership between home and school means not merely compliance or trust, but collaboration under parental authority. The right to know, to approve, and to object is not only a civil entitlement but a duty arising from the parental vocation.

A Call to Restore Catholic Integrity
Catholic schools must remember that they exist not to reflect the prevailing culture but to redeem it. To comply with statutory RSE obligations while neglecting the Catholic vision of purity and grace is to betray their mission. The teaching of human sexuality must always be presented as part of the call to holiness—never as a technical or social matter detached from faith. Where government policy or secular expectations conflict with divine law, Catholic schools must stand firm in fidelity to Christ and to the Magisterium.

As Pius XI urged, parents must “strain every nerve to ward off such an outrage” as the corruption of family life by worldly influences and to “hold exclusive authority to direct the education of their offspring.”¹² In our time, this vigilance is not merely prudent; it is indispensable to preserving innocence, virtue, and faith in the hearts of children.

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2225–2226.
² Ibid.
³ Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 14.
⁴ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2224.
⁵ Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 12.
⁶ Catholic Education Service, “Relationships and Sex Education,” catholiceducation.org.uk.
⁷ Society of Saint Pius X (UK District), “Sex-Ed in Catholic Schools,” fsspx.uk.
⁸ B.R. Taylorian, The Opposition of Traditionalist Catholics to Sex Education (University of Central Lancashire, 2024).
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Society of Saint Pius X, “The Catholic Attitude to Sex Education,” fsspx.uk.
¹¹ Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), 65–67, citing Silvio Antoniano, On the Christian Education of Children (“The Golden Treatise”).
¹² Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 42.
¹³ European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 of Protocol 1; Article 8.

The Westminster Declaration: Conscience or Compromise?

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

The new Westminster Declaration has brought before us once again the perennial question of how Christians must witness to truth in a society increasingly hostile to the divine law. Conscience, rightly formed, is not a private instinct but the echo of God’s law written upon the heart. The Declaration rightly identifies threats to life, marriage, education, and freedom, but these concerns must be situated within the broader framework of Catholic doctrine, lest our testimony to Christ be reduced to mere cultural conservatism.

There is a danger, in our present moment, of multiplying words where a few burning words of witness would suffice. The first Westminster Declaration had the ring of prophecy: it spoke of conscience and truth, life and marriage, with the clarity of martyrs. The new Declaration, though well-intentioned, reads more like a petition to Parliament than a trumpet blast to the nation. By citing statutes, rulings, and commissions, it risks grounding Christian witness in the shifting sands of policy rather than the rock of divine law. Yet one cannot deny that the issues of education, gender, and technology now cry out for attention. The challenge is whether Christians will stand as witnesses, or merely as lobbyists.

The Church has always taught that man’s first and fundamental right is the right to know, love, and serve God. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), made clear that the foundation of civil society rests upon the recognition of God as supreme Lawgiver and Judge, and that rulers are bound to govern according to His eternal law.¹ Likewise, Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) reminded the world that true peace and justice cannot be secured except under the Kingship of Christ.² These encyclicals, and others like Libertas Praestantissimum (1888), affirm that liberty has meaning only when ordered to truth and virtue.³ Freedom of conscience cannot mean license to error; rather, it means freedom from coercion in obeying the law of God.

It is precisely here that we must contrast the perennial doctrine with the ambiguities introduced by Dignitatis Humanae (1965). While the Council insisted that it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” (§1), it nevertheless advanced the novel claim that every person has a natural right not to be restrained from publicly professing even erroneous religious belief (§2). This formulation, vague and unqualified, was a rupture with the consistent teaching of the popes from Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832) to Pius XII, who maintained that although error may at times be tolerated for the sake of public peace, it can never be clothed with a natural right.⁴

This ambiguity has borne bitter fruit. What was once prudential toleration has been transformed into a supposed liberty to promote error, even in public institutions. In the decades since Vatican II, secular governments, often citing “religious liberty” in conciliar language, have come to treat the true religion and false religions as juridically equal. Worse still, they have turned this principle inward, using it to deny Christians the very right to profess truth, because truth is redefined as one “opinion” among many. The irony is stark: in the name of religious liberty, Christians are increasingly coerced into silence, while ideologies opposed to the natural law are granted legal protection and cultural dominance.

Contemporary Catholic critics foresaw this danger. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre argued that Dignitatis Humanae “turns its back on the doctrine of Gregory XVI and Pius IX,” and that by equating liberty with the right to profess error, it would produce “apostasy in practice.”⁵ Romano Amerio, in Iota Unum, noted that Vatican II’s declaration “changes the concept of tolerance into a right of error, which is absurd and destructive of truth itself.”⁶ Michael Davies, writing in Religious Liberty and the Second Vatican Council, warned that the document’s ambiguity was “the Trojan horse through which liberalism would capture the Church.”⁷

The martyrs of England bore witness to a different vision. They resisted unjust laws not with elaborate petitions to Parliament, but with the silent eloquence of their sacrifice. St Thomas More affirmed before his execution that he died “the King’s good servant, but God’s first.” In this he exemplified the Catholic understanding of religious liberty: obedience to lawful authority, but never at the expense of divine law. Their blood confirms the truth that rights are not created by the State, nor grounded in shifting social compacts, but flow from the sovereignty of Christ the King.

The Westminster Declaration of 2025 addresses many urgent matters: gender ideology, parental rights in education, and the moral challenges of artificial intelligence. Yet we must be clear that our defence of life, marriage, and conscience is not simply a matter of civic freedom or cultural heritage. It is rooted in the sovereignty of Christ the King, the unchanging law of God, and the mission of the Church to sanctify the world. To forget this is to reduce Christian witness to political advocacy.

As Pius XII once warned, “A people that separates itself from God becomes enslaved to error and passion.”⁸ Our task is not only to preserve the remnants of Christian conscience in law, but to proclaim anew the social Kingship of Christ, upon which the true rights and dignity of man depend. Only then will any declaration bearing the name of Westminster avoid becoming a political manifesto, and instead recover the prophetic power of a Christian witness rooted in the Cross.

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

  1. Pius XII, Address to the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues (29 September 1957).
  2. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1 November 1885), §§3–6.
  3. Pius XI, Quas Primas (11 December 1925), §§18–19.
  4. Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum (20 June 1888), §§16–17.
  5. Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832); Pius IX, Quanta Cura (1864); Pius XII, Allocution Ci Riesce to the Roman Forum (1953).
  6. Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1986), pp. 39–41.
  7. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century (Kansas City: Sarto House, 1996), §210.
  8. Michael Davies, Religious Liberty and the Second Vatican Council (TAN Books, 1992), pp. 117–119.

Unity as a Weapon: The Hollister Suppression

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

It is a bitter irony of our times that the word “unity” is now wielded as a club to drive Catholics from the very altar that formed the saints. Bishop Daniel Garcia, on the eve of leaving Monterey, has chosen to terminate the Traditional Latin Mass at Sacred Heart, Hollister. He invokes Traditionis Custodes and urges the faithful to “join in unity” at the postconciliar table, as though unity could be manufactured by coercion and conformity.¹

This is not unity. It is exclusion disguised as unity. It is the age-old trick of the bureaucrat: to make a slogan the justification for silencing conscience. The families who prayed at that altar were not rebels, but Catholics clinging to the faith of their fathers. Yet in the name of “communion,” they are cast aside, told that their devotion is now a liability.²

Pope St Pius V, in Quo Primum, bound his successors and declared the Roman Missal to be used in perpetuity.³ Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated.⁴ But now bishops, citing Traditionis Custodes, behave as though the Mass of Ages is poison, its adherents to be cleansed from the Church in the name of uniformity. What was sacred yesterday is forbidden today. What nourished saints for centuries is treated as a threat to the faithful.

The irony grows darker: Traditionis Custodes was sold as a means to “foster unity,” but in practice it has become the charter of division. Unity is not achieved by erasing memory, or by enforcing amnesia upon the flock. It is achieved by continuity—by recognising that the faith is one precisely because it transcends the novelties of an age. The Roman Rite in its ancient form is not an enemy of unity; it is its surest guarantee.⁵

The faithful in Hollister are not the ones breaking unity. It is the shepherd who drives them from the fold who rends the seamless garment of Christ. By suppressing their Mass, Bishop Garcia has betrayed the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls.⁶ Instead of feeding the sheep, he has scattered them. Instead of binding wounds, he has inflicted them.

The saints did not kneel at guitars and microphones. They were formed at the altar of sacrifice, where priest and people alike bowed before the mystery of Calvary made present. And now, in Monterey, that altar has been declared closed—because unity, we are told, requires exile.

But Christ does not change, and His sacrifice does not expire. The Mass of Ages remains holy. And no decree, however draped in slogans, can erase what God has hallowed.

The Old Roman Apostolate
This moment reveals why the Old Roman Apostolate endures in its mission and charism. Born of fidelity to apostolic tradition, we have sought to preserve the perennial magisterium and the ancient liturgy in the face of novelty and rupture. We do not claim an easy path, nor do we delight in division; rather, we recognise a state of necessity, compelled by conscience to uphold what the Church herself cannot abolish. Our vocation is to witness to continuity when others proclaim rupture, to safeguard the faith when others dilute it, and to hold fast to the Mass of Ages as the surest anchor of unity.

The ORA does not exist as a parallel Church but as a remnant, crying out with the saints that the liturgy which sanctified them is holy still. We stand ready for reconciliation, but never at the price of truth. For unity without truth is falsehood, and obedience without fidelity is betrayal.

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

¹ Bishop Daniel Garcia, Letter to the Faithful of Sacred Heart, Hollister, 14 September 2025, reported by Catholic News Agency.
² CIC 1983, can. 214: “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the lawful pastors of the Church.”
³ Pius V, Quo Primum (1570).
⁴ Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007), art. 1.
⁵ Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007).
⁶ CIC 1983, can. 1752: Salus animarum suprema lex.

Ordinary Men, Dangerous Ideas

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

When Adolf Eichmann sat in his glass booth in Jerusalem in 1962, the world expected to see a monster. What it saw instead was a man—quiet, bureaucratic, unremarkable. That was the horror.

The Holocaust survivor Yehiel Dinur, who collapsed in the courtroom at the sight of him, later explained that it was not memory that overwhelmed him. It was the realisation that Eichmann was not a demon. He was ordinary. Evil, he saw, does not always come with horns and fire. It comes in the form of ordinary men surrendering their consciences to dangerous ideas.¹

That truth is no less urgent today. The ideologies have changed, but the mechanics remain. Islamism sanctifies violence as obedience to God. Secular progressivism dehumanises its opponents as “fascists” and “threats to democracy.” Even within the Church, leaders have repeated this language, denouncing fellow Christians at the Unite the Kingdom March as extremists while remaining silent about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, slain in America only days before for his public witness.²

The double standard is glaring. A mother praying outside an abortion clinic is branded a terrorist; a jihadist who slaughters families in Israel is excused as a “resistance fighter.” A Christian patriot with a banner is shamed by bishops; a leftist agitator screaming hatred is praised as a prophet of progress. When truth is inverted this way, society reveals not only political corruption but spiritual sickness.

The danger lies not only in what is done but in how it is spoken. When political leaders label their opponents “Nazis” or “enemies of humanity,” when bishops rebuke the faithful more harshly than they rebuke the spirit of the age, the result is the same: people cease to be treated as neighbours. Once dehumanised, they can be silenced, punished, erased. History shows that the road to atrocity begins not with bullets but with words.³

Here the wisdom of the Church resounds. St Augustine warned that fallen man justifies his corruption unless restrained by grace.⁴ St Thomas Aquinas taught that a law contrary to the natural law is no law at all but a perversion.⁵ Pope Pius XI condemned Nazism as a false religion.⁶ Pope Leo XIII warned that when the authority of Christ is rejected, conscience loses its compass and men are “driven headlong into every excess of error and crime.”⁷ The ideologies of our time—whether Islamist or secular progressive—repeat this pattern. They make evil appear good, and they sanctify hatred in the name of righteousness.

But here is the paradox for us, my beloved brethren. We cannot resist evil by mirroring it. We cannot fight dehumanisation with more dehumanisation. We must oppose lies, yes, and boldly. We must defend truth, yes, and courageously. But we must do so without losing charity. For the Cross teaches us that Christ conquered not by hating His enemies, but by offering Himself for them. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)

This is the Church’s path: to proclaim truth without compromise and to live it with sacrificial love. To expose the rhetoric of the world for what it is—poisonous, dangerous, destructive—yet not to be poisoned by it ourselves. To recognise, even in our fiercest adversaries, men made in the image of God, and to call them to repentance.

Eichmann’s ordinariness is a warning: ideology can make any man capable of horror. The rhetoric of our age is a warning: dehumanisation always prepares the ground for persecution. And Christ’s Cross is the answer: only love, grounded in truth, can break the cycle.

We must not be naïve. The age of tolerance has revealed itself as an age of ideology, and Christians will be its scapegoats. But let us not tremble. We know the pattern. We have seen it before. And we know, too, that the final word is not the banality of evil, but the triumph of grace.

Ordinary men, dangerous ideas. That is the danger. Ordinary Christians, faithful to Christ. That is the hope.

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

Footnotes
¹ Yehiel Dinur, interview with Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes (CBS News, 1979).
² Reports on the Unite the Kingdom March, September 2025; cf. coverage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, State Farm Stadium Memorial, Glendale, AZ, 21 September 2025.
³ Cf. contemporary political rhetoric: President Joe Biden’s remarks, “MAGA Republicans a threat to democracy” (Philadelphia speech, 1 September 2022); Labour MPs on gender-critical feminists, Hansard debates 2023–25; Canadian federal cases against pro-life campaigners, 2023–24.
⁴ St Augustine, De Natura et Gratia, ch. 3.
⁵ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 93, a. 3.
⁶ Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937.
⁷ Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885.

The Tyranny of Fear: Paracetamol, Autism, and the Age of Distrust

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

There was a time when the family medicine cabinet represented the ordinary mercies of Providence — a fever brought down, a headache relieved, a child comforted. Yet in our present age, even the simplest remedy is caught up in a theatre of fear. Paracetamol, known in America as Tylenol, has been transformed from a trusted household staple into the villain of a thousand conspiracies. What has changed? Not the substance of the drug, but the substance of our culture.

We live in an era where suspicion is stronger than truth, and fear louder than reason. The story of paracetamol and autism tells us less about medicine and more about the sickness of the modern mind.

Science and Its Distortions
Let us begin with the facts. A major Scandinavian study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2023) compared siblings — one exposed prenatally to acetaminophen, another not — and found no association with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability¹. In plain speech: within the same family, the presence or absence of paracetamol exposure made no difference.

Yet a different review, published in 2025, proclaimed the evidence “strong” for a link. Social media seized on this word, “strong,” and translated it into “proven.” A Johns Hopkins study in 2019 observed correlations in umbilical cord blood, and activists declared a “direct connection”². Even images were invented to persuade: a grotesque diagram showing vaccination, fever, Tylenol, and finally a weeping child labelled “autism.”

Here we see the perennial temptation: to mistake suggestion for certainty, association for causation. The lie has wings; truth must walk on crutches.

Regulators, Lawsuits, and the Spectacle of Fear
What then do regulators say? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed adding a caution to labels, not because causation is proved, but because in our climate of suspicion, silence itself would be seen as complicity³. The European and British authorities have stood firm: paracetamol remains the recommended analgesic in pregnancy, when used prudently⁴.

And what of the courts? In 2024, American lawsuits alleging that Tylenol caused autism were dismissed. The judge ruled that the expert testimony failed the very test of scientific reliability. Yet though the law cast out the claim, the idea remains in circulation, because fear feeds on itself⁵.

The courtroom has become theatre, the news cycle a pulpit of panic. In such an age, the burden of proof is no longer on the accuser but on the accused.

The Moral Disease Beneath the Medical Debate
What is at stake is not merely whether paracetamol is safe, but whether our civilisation can still distinguish truth from error, evidence from conjecture, prudence from hysteria.

This age of distrust is the child of modernism: once we deny objective truth in theology, it is not long before we deny it in science. If there is no Magisterium in the Church, there will be no authority in medicine. If we will not believe the prophets, neither will we believe the epidemiologists.

We have seen this same drama play out in the vaccine debates. The Church affirms that parents have the duty of prudence, not of panic. To refuse all medicine out of fear is not holiness but presumption. To treat speculation as revelation is to exchange science for superstition.

The Catholic Response: Prudence and Trust
What then should a Catholic do? The answer is as old as St. Thomas: virtue is found in prudence, the golden mean between recklessness and cowardice.

Paracetamol has been used for generations. The most rigorous studies show no causal link with autism. Regulators advise moderation, not abstinence. The Church teaches that the goods of creation are not to be despised, but received with thanksgiving and discernment.

Yet we must also be vigilant. The family is the first guardian of life. If we surrender discernment to lawsuits and internet images, we fail in our duty. Prudence requires both attentiveness to scientific evidence and resistance to the theatre of fear.

Conclusion: The Tyranny of Fear and the Triumph of Truth
My beloved, what the paracetamol debate reveals is the deeper malady of our age: the tyranny of fear. In a culture that no longer believes in truth, every whisper becomes an accusation, every study a conspiracy, every medicine a menace.

But Christ did not die to make us slaves of suspicion. “Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). The Christian is called to discern, not to panic; to reason, not to rage. The medicine cabinet is not the tabernacle — it does not hold the Bread of Life. Yet neither should it become the idol of fear.

We must walk the narrow way: trusting in God, using His gifts with prudence, rejecting both complacency and hysteria. For if fear reigns in the mind, faith cannot reign in the heart.

And so I say, with Fulton Sheen: “Truth does not need to be defended, only proclaimed.” The truth is this: no evidence proves that paracetamol causes autism. The greater danger lies not in a bottle of tablets, but in a culture addicted to fear.

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

  1. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, In re Acetaminophen ASD/ADHD Litigation, dismissal ruling 2024; appeals pending.
  2. Gustavson, K. et al., JAMA Psychiatry, 2023 – Scandinavian sibling-comparison cohort study.
  3. Wang, C. et al., JAMA Psychiatry, 2019 – Johns Hopkins cord blood study.
  4. FDA, “FDA announces proposed labeling changes for acetaminophen products,” 2025.
  5. EMA/MHRA joint statements, 2025 – guidance on paracetamol in pregnancy.

A Defence of Truth, Liberty, and the Common Good: Oppose an official definition of Islamophobia

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

Britain stands at a crossroads. A government Working Group, chaired by the former Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, is presently preparing a definition of “Islamophobia.” This body was created by the government in February 2025 and given six months to produce its recommendations, without Parliament having a say in the matter. The public consultation has already closed, and if the Group adheres to its timetable, its recommendation—drafted in secret—will be delivered within weeks. The government intends then to roll out this definition across public bodies, urging them to embed it in speech codes, so that anyone who falls foul of the new standard can be punished¹.

The justification given for this extraordinary measure is that Britain has witnessed a rise in anti-Muslim hostility since the terrorist attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023². But this argument is deeply flawed. Our nation already possesses robust laws that protect people from religious hatred and discrimination. These laws apply equally to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all faith communities³. The way to protect Muslims is to enforce those existing statutes, not to introduce what would amount to a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door.

As Christians, we affirm that all men and women are created in the image of God and deserve equal dignity and justice. To single out one community for special protections would be an affront to that principle. It would contradict the Scriptural command that believers should not “have respect of persons” (James 2:1). Such privileging of one faith over others risks exacerbating tensions rather than fostering harmony. Even Fiyaz Mughal, the Muslim founder of Tell MAMA, has warned that “any definition that marks out one community is going to cause major social divisions”⁴.

The dangers are not theoretical. An official definition of “Islamophobia” would have a chilling effect on free speech. Already, those who have raised legitimate concerns—for example, the disproportionate involvement of some Muslim men of Pakistani heritage in grooming gangs—have been accused of Islamophobia. Baroness Casey, in her official report, confirmed that one reason officials failed to act on the grooming scandals was fear of that very label⁵. Sarah Champion MP, one of the few politicians willing to speak honestly, was even shortlisted for “Islamophobe of the Year” by the Islamic Human Rights Commission⁶.

Britain has a storied tradition of religious tolerance. Surveys show that nine out of ten of our people are comfortable living alongside those of different religious beliefs—more than anywhere else in Europe⁷. This is a heritage of which we should be proud. To jeopardise it by elevating one faith to a privileged status would be to exchange harmony for resentment, and equality for division.

We must also remember that Britain deliberately abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008⁸. It was recognised then that in a plural society no religion should be shielded from criticism. To introduce an official definition of “Islamophobia” now would be to resurrect blasphemy law in another form, this time for the benefit of one faith alone. Such a step would undermine freedom of speech and conscience and betray the Christian heritage that shaped our liberties.

Beloved faithful, this is not a mere matter of policy but of principle. We are called to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). To be silenced by fear is to become complicit in falsehood. Caesar must never dictate which truths may be spoken.

Therefore, I urge you to act. Write to your Members of Parliament and to your councillors. Tell them plainly that you oppose the creation of a privileged status for Islam, that you stand for equal treatment under the law, and that you will not see Britain’s freedoms traded away. You may use the draft letter we have provided below, and you can obtain the contact details of your representatives quickly and simply via www.writetothem.com.

If we fail to speak now, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak at all. Let us not be that generation. Let us stand for truth, liberty, and the common good.

Draft_Letter_IslamophobiaDownload

Footnotes

  1. UK Government announcement, creation of the Working Group on anti-Muslim hatred, February 2025.
  2. Government rationale cited in media reports following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
  3. Equality Act 2010, Part 2 (Protected Characteristics), including religion or belief.
  4. Fiyaz Mughal, quoted in public commentary on proposed definitions of Islamophobia.
  5. Louise Casey, Independent Review into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (2015).
  6. Islamic Human Rights Commission, Islamophobia Awards 2017, shortlist included Sarah Champion MP.
  7. European Values Study, data on tolerance and acceptance of religious diversity (latest UK survey).
  8. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

The Enduring Gift of Christian Sexual Ethics

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

The ordering of human love has always been decisive for the health of civilisations. At stake is not simply the happiness of individuals, but the stability of families, the nurture of children, and the vitality of culture itself. Christianity, from its beginning, proposed a vision of sexuality that was at once demanding and profoundly humane. Far from repressing joy, it elevates it—integrating passion with fidelity, openness to life, and the dignity of persons.

The Church has never been content to leave the most intimate of human acts to shifting preference. From Genesis onward, marriage is revealed as covenant: “The two shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:5). Christ confirmed this order, declaring: “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6). Sexual intimacy belongs to marriage, marriage is permanent and faithful, chastity before marriage prepares for fidelity within it, and openness to life crowns it with fruit. Virginity and celibacy point to the higher truth that human fulfilment ultimately rests in God.

The Fathers called these principles beautiful. St. Augustine described chastity as “the beauty of the soul” which brings harmony to desire.¹ St. John Chrysostom called the Christian household “a little Church,” where fidelity mirrors the love of Christ and His Bride.² St. Jerome observed that consecrated virginity does not diminish love but ennobles it.³ Their vision was later reaffirmed by the magisterium: Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii taught that marriage is ordered both to the procreation of children and the mutual perfection of the spouses;⁴ the Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes called marriage “a covenant of irrevocable personal consent”;⁵ and St. John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio declared that “the future of humanity passes by way of the family.”⁶

What has this ethic produced in practice? The social sciences confirm what revelation declared. Decades of research show that children raised in stable, married families are healthier, better educated, and more emotionally secure. A Princeton study led by W. Bradford Wilcox concluded that intact marriages reduce child poverty, improve school performance, and lower delinquency.⁷ Anthropologists have demonstrated that monogamous marriage, historically rare, restrains elite polygamy, reduces male violence, and directs energy into family provision. Joseph Henrich called this shift “the domestication of the male,” essential for peaceful and productive societies.⁸

Where intimacy is safeguarded by fidelity, health is preserved. The Centers for Disease Control consistently note that stable, monogamous unions carry the lowest risks of disease and psychological harm.⁹ By insisting on covenantal love, Christian morality provides a natural safeguard for trust and well-being. By demanding equal fidelity from husband and wife, it elevated the dignity of women. What theology first declared, anthropology now confirms: monogamous marriage fosters greater equality between the sexes and deeper paternal investment in children.¹⁰

This vision is also life-affirming. In the ancient world, Christians distinguished themselves by refusing to expose infants, insisting that every child is a gift. Roman historians noted the peculiarity of this practice.¹¹ Today, the same openness to life challenges a culture that too often views children as burdens. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI warned prophetically that to separate love from life would lead to marital breakdown, the exploitation of women, and demographic decline.¹² His words have proven true. Nations that embraced contraception and abortion as norms now face collapsing birth rates and an uncertain future. Italy, Spain, and Japan all record fertility rates far below replacement level, leaving questions of intergenerational care and economic survival.¹³

Even psychology lends its voice. Walter Mischel’s well-known studies on delayed gratification showed that the ability to restrain desire predicted better outcomes in education, work, and health decades later.¹⁴ Christian chastity, far from being denial, is a school of virtue. It trains men and women to master desire, not be mastered by it. It is preparation for fidelity in marriage and a foundation for self-possession in all of life.

The witness of celibacy and virginity adds another dimension. St. Paul called it a gift enabling undivided devotion to God. Far from undermining society, celibate communities have enriched it: monasteries preserved learning, cultivated land, and cared for the sick; religious orders established schools and hospitals that endure to this day. As Rodney Stark has shown, the radical witness of virginity and celibacy drew many to the Church, impressed by the joy of lives wholly consecrated to Christ.¹⁵

By contrast, the world’s departure from these principles is plain. In the United States, more than 40% of children are born outside marriage.¹⁶ Researchers such as Sara McLanahan have shown that these children face higher risks of poverty and educational disadvantage.¹⁷ Across Europe, loneliness has reached record levels among young adults, often linked to unstable relationships and the decline of family bonds.¹⁸ The United Kingdom has reported the highest rates of syphilis in seventy years.¹⁹ Meanwhile, nations that suppress openness to life now face demographic winter.²⁰ And cultural observers like Mary Eberstadt have argued that the weakening of family life contributes directly to social fragmentation, as individuals seek identity in causes and ideologies when they no longer receive it from kinship and home.²¹

These are not condemnations but clarifications. They show by contrast how the Christian ethic, lived authentically, provides remedies for today’s wounds. By calling men to be faithful protectors, women to be honoured partners, and children to be cherished blessings, it nurtures harmony. By connecting intimacy with covenant, it safeguards trust. By linking love to life, it renews generations.

Christian sexual morality is not a burden but a gift—an enduring framework through which love finds its truest form. Where it is embraced, societies flourish; where it is neglected, they falter. Demanding, yes—but profoundly humane. It orders love to truth, and life to abundance. In the words of St. John Paul II: “Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible to himself… if love is not revealed to him.”²²

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

¹ St. Augustine, Confessions, Book X.
² St. John Chrysostom, Homily XX on Ephesians.
³ St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I.
⁴ Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930), §23.
⁵ Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (1965), §48.
⁶ John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio (1981), §86.
⁷ W. Bradford Wilcox, Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research Findings (Princeton/Institute for American Values, 2011).
⁸ Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd & Peter J. Richerson, The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (2012).
⁹ CDC, Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report (2023).
¹⁰ Joseph Henrich, The WEIRDest People in the World (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020).
¹¹ Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44; cf. Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, §35.
¹² Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968), §17.
¹³ UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Fertility and Family Planning 2022.
¹⁴ Walter Mischel, The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control (Little, Brown, 2014).
¹⁵ Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (HarperOne, 1997).
¹⁶ CDC, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 72, No. 2 (2023).
¹⁷ Sara McLanahan & Isabel Sawhill, Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited, Future of Children 15:2 (2005).
¹⁸ European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Loneliness in the EU (2022).
¹⁹ UK Health Security Agency, Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance Data (2022).
²⁰ UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Fertility and Family Planning 2022.
²¹ Mary Eberstadt, Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics (Templeton Press, 2019).
²² John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (1979), §10.

Too religious for TikTok? Good.

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

When TikTok refused to promote a video titled The Key to the Christian Life: Mastery of the Self, the reason they gave was telling. The content, they said, was “politically and religiously sensitive.”

Not hateful.

Not inflammatory.

Not misleading.

Just religiously sensitive.

In a digital world saturated with confusion, vulgarity, and ideological chaos, this is what gets flagged: a calm, reasoned presentation about virtue, discipline, and the Ten Commandments. A message calling people to personal holiness. A talk urging people to become what God made them to be.

That’s the threat now.

And that tells us something very important: we are over the target.

The Gospel Is Always a Threat to Lies

What TikTok—and much of the modern world—fears is not religion as such. Plenty of saccharine, vague spirituality makes it through the algorithmic filters. What they fear is conviction. Clarity. The idea that some things are true and others are not. That some actions lead to life and others to death. That holiness is not only real—but demanded.

They fear what the world has always feared: the Gospel in full. The Gospel that says repent. That says deny yourself. That says be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To a culture built on indulgence, that is subversive.

To a society that calls vice “freedom,” a call to self-mastery is intolerable.

This Is Not a Bug—It’s a Feature

We do not complain about this rejection. We highlight it. We name it. We use it.

Because when a platform that promotes every imaginable vice decides that virtue is the problem, it reveals more about the platform than about the content.

This is what faithfulness costs now—not imprisonment, not yet martyrdom, but exclusion. Suppression. “This message doesn’t fit.” “This video can’t be promoted.”

Good.

It is far better to be rejected for speaking truth than accepted for flattering lies.

Let the Censorship Speak

TikTok has done us a favor. They’ve shown us that the call to holiness—the central theme of Christian life—is now countercultural enough to be suppressed.

Let that sink in: calling people to follow the Ten Commandments is now edgy.

So be it.

We will not water it down. We will not retreat. If “Mastery of the Self” is too religious for TikTok, then we are in exactly the right place. The light is shining, and the darkness does not comprehend it.

What You Can Do

Share the video. Speak the truth. Don’t hide your faith to avoid friction—proclaim it to cause conversion.

And above all: live the message. That’s what the world cannot ignore.

Because holiness is not a theory. It’s not a slogan. It’s a fire. And that fire is how the world is changed.

Let the platforms tremble. Let the censors panic. Let the truth ring louder than ever:

Freedom begins with self-mastery. Holiness is a choice. And the time to choose is now.

Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

A statement by the Titular Archbishop of Selsey on the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, September 8th 2022

YouTube player

We mourn today the passing of Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, for many our only monarch and for all, the longest serving monarch of our lifetimes and in the history of our nation.

Through all the vicissitudes of modern history, the warring tensions of contemporary life, much of which affected her family deeply as well as our nation, Elizabeth II was in her person the steady anchor providing continuity and stability throughout it all. This she was able to do because of her deeply held Christian faith. Not just in her patronage of charities and good causes, and sense of duty but in her very person, possessing a living faith.

In her quiet yet not understated manifestation of Christian discipleship, Her Majesty subtly taught us by example, how to fulfill the two Great Commandments; love of God and love of neighbour (cf Matthew 22:35-40). The devotion with which she kept her Coronation Oath to God for love of Him, and the depth of her personal commitment and sense of duty to neighbour in public service for love of us, her people, is a lesson in sacrificial humility for us all. Though she would likely be the first to demure, Her Majesty’s Christian example is comparable in many ways to the great historical and canonised monarchs of our faith.

The greatness of her long reign and all the major milestones of modern history through which she lived, will surely long be remembered. But what must never be forgotten, if we would truly cherish the memory of her as a person, and if we would desire a lasting legacy of her life’s achievements, it behoves us all who share her faith to ourselves manifest it as she did, in sacrificial service of each other, our society and our nation. God save the Queen.

Long live the King.