Category: Podcasts

Impartiality on Parade: High Court Judgment on Police at Pride Signals Warning for All Public Bodies

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

The High Court ruling in Smith v Northumbria Police found police participation in Pride unlawful due to ideological partiality. The judgment has wide implications, warning public bodies—like councils, schools, and NHS trusts—that sponsoring or endorsing Pride events aligned with gender ideology may breach duties of impartiality, misuse public funds, and violate the rights of those with protected beliefs under equality law. Public neutrality is not optional.

Smith v Northumbria Police sets precedent against ideological partisanship in public institutions—from forces to councils, schools, and services

In a defining moment for the principle of impartiality in British public life, the High Court has ruled that Northumbria Police acted unlawfully by participating in a Pride event in a manner that conveyed ideological alignment with gender identity politics. The ruling in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) makes clear that public authorities have no legal entitlement to side with one set of beliefs over another in live political or philosophical debates¹.

While the case concerned a police force, its implications are far broader. It places public authorities—including councils, schools, libraries, NHS Trusts, and publicly funded cultural bodies—on clear notice: you may not lawfully take sides in live political or ideological disputes, even under the banner of “inclusion.”

Mr Justice Linden’s ruling emphasised that the Progress Pride flag is not ideologically neutral, especially given its strong association with trans activism and groups that explicitly exclude gender-critical individuals². Participating in or sponsoring Pride under that symbol, or in association with activist groups that explicitly exclude dissenting views, creates a reasonable perception of partiality. That perception alone is unlawful in many public contexts³.Subscribed

The Limits of the Equality Act and PSED
The case exposed the misapplication of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by police and other institutions. Northumbria Police had claimed that their support for Pride, and by extension gender ideology, was justified by the need to “advance equality of opportunity.” But the court firmly rejected that reasoning, stating that:

“The Defendant’s actions created the reasonable impression of partiality in a contested moral and political debate. The Equality Act does not override the police duty of neutrality.”⁴

The same logic applies to publicly funded schools who promote Pride Month without balance, councils that fly ideological flags from civic buildings, and leisure centres, libraries, or hospitals that host activist stalls without acknowledging protected beliefs on the other side.

Participation in politically or ideologically aligned events—such as Pride, where gender identity ideology is now deeply embedded—must be scrutinised. Not only must public authorities avoid taking sides; they must not even create the impression that they do⁵.

Schools, Councils, and Cultural Capture
Many public institutions have become complicit in this ideological overreach. Examples include:

  • Schools compelling student participation in Pride-themed assemblies or displays, while failing to acknowledge the protected status of gender-critical views under the Equality Act⁶.
  • Council-run gyms and swimming pools festooned with Progress flags during June, with no balancing representation of dissenting beliefs.
  • Libraries and museums co-hosting drag events, “ally training,” or exhibitions steeped in gender ideology, with no input from alternative perspectives.
  • Town halls sponsoring Pride floats while event organisers explicitly bar groups who express biologically grounded views of sex.

All such conduct is now in legal question. The Smith ruling confirms that the appearance of alignment with one side of the gender identity debate is enough to breach duties of fairness and impartiality, even if the underlying intent is framed as “inclusion.”⁷

This is particularly acute in light of recent cases affirming that gender-critical views are protected under UK equality law and the European Convention on Human Rights⁸. Public institutions who display Progress Pride symbols, or participate in events where such beliefs are rejected or excluded, are now vulnerable to legal challenge.

Public Funds, Political Activism
The ruling also intersects with long-standing restrictions on political activity by public bodies. For example, the Education Act 1996 requires schools to maintain political neutrality, especially when teaching controversial topics⁹. The Local Government Act 1986 prohibits councils from spending public funds on material that promotes a political view¹⁰.

The embrace of Pride—especially in its modern, gender-ideological form—may now be viewed not as neutral community engagement, but as partisan expression. Public funds spent on ideological branding, flag raising, or stall sponsorship may constitute misuse of public money.

Towards a Reset in Public Institutions
For years, Pride events have enjoyed automatic institutional support. But as the Smith judgment shows, this support can no longer be taken for granted when such events are clearly aligned with contested political agendas.

This ruling restores an essential constitutional principle: public authorities must serve all citizens impartially, regardless of creed, conscience, or belief.

They must not act as champions of ideologies, no matter how popular or progressive those ideologies claim to be.

What Now?
In light of the Smith judgment, public institutions must:

  • Reassess participation in Pride events, especially if official branding, uniformed staff, or sponsored materials are involved.
  • Cease use of the Progress Pride flag or similar symbols that imply endorsement of contested ideological positions.
  • Review all equality and diversity training to ensure it is ideologically neutral and includes protected belief perspectives.
  • Respect political neutrality in schools, ensuring pupils are exposed to all lawful perspectives on sex and gender.
  • Apply the Public Sector Equality Duty fairly, acknowledging the rights and dignity of all protected belief groups, not just the fashionable ones.

A Turning Point
This judgment may prove to be a watershed moment in resisting the ideological overreach of state-funded bodies. It affirms that the law is not a tool of cultural revolution but a shield for all citizens, especially those whose views have been maligned or suppressed.

For gender-critical women, for faithful Christians, for traditional moral thinkers, and for ordinary citizens concerned by institutional drift into activism, Smith v Northumbria Police offers a powerful affirmation:

Your beliefs are lawful. The state may not take sides. Impartiality is not optional.

Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share

Footnotes

¹ Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
² Ibid., §§15–16
³ Ibid., §144
⁴ Ibid., §139
⁵ Ibid., §§63–66
⁶ Equality Act 2010, s.10; Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
⁷ Smith, §48
⁸ For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
⁹ Education Act 1996, ss.406–407
¹⁰ Local Government Act 1986, s.2

Silencing Dissent? Labour’s Islamophobia Definition and the Threat to Academic Freedom

Published on by The Editor1 Comment

Peers warn proposed definition could become a de facto blasphemy law on UK campuses and beyond.

As the Labour government reviews legal definitions of anti-Muslim hatred, traditional Catholics and civil libertarians alike should resist the ideological drift that falsely equates religious criticism with racism. At stake is not merely a terminological preference but the future boundary between lawful dissent and criminalised speech. The question is urgent: will criticism of Islam become functionally equivalent to racism in law and public life?

A Shifting Landscape of Definitions
In early 2025, the newly elected Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer inherited a policy initiative launched under the Conservative government to define the parameters of anti-Muslim hatred. The initiative took the form of a Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, with the goal of producing a non-statutory definition that could inform hate crime enforcement, education policy, and civic guidance.

Despite assurances that any forthcoming definition would not be legally binding, Mr Grieve has expressed the hope that it would be “embedded in university speech codes” to curb so-called “micro-aggressions”¹. More than thirty peers from across the political spectrum have now written to Mr Grieve, warning that such a move would have a “chilling effect” on free speech and effectively reintroduce a blasphemy law in secular guise².

The APPG’s 2018 Definition: Ambiguity as Ideology
The most widely circulated definition of Islamophobia remains that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, issued in 2018:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”³

This definition, which has been adopted by the Labour Party in opposition and by many local authorities, has drawn criticism for its vagueness and ideological presuppositions. “Muslimness” is undefined and unbounded. It could refer to theological beliefs, cultural customs, political behaviours, or dress—leaving citizens unsure of what speech is permitted. Civil liberties groups, ex-Muslim reformers, and Christian leaders alike have warned that this framing protects not just persons from hate, but ideas from scrutiny, inverting the very principles of a pluralistic society.

Islam Is Not a Race
The most dangerous presumption in the APPG definition is its claim that Islamophobia is a form of racism. This is conceptually incoherent. Islam is not a race—it is a global religion with adherents from every ethnic background. To label criticism of Islamic belief, law, or history as racism is to commit a category error—one that has already been used to stigmatise theological dissent.

From a Catholic perspective, the danger is acute. The Gospel proclaims Christ crucified and risen, the only Son of the Father, and Saviour of mankind. Islam explicitly denies these doctrines. If the critique or rejection of Islamic teaching is redefined as racism, then evangelisation itself becomes hate speech.

A Definition Drafted in Secret?
Despite the gravity of its task, the Working Group has operated with a remarkable lack of transparency. Its terms of reference state that its proceedings are confidential, its advice to government private, and that the group “does not speak on behalf of HMG”⁴. No public list of members has been released, no minutes published, and no evidence of consultation with Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or secular groups—despite the fact that some of these communities are frequently misidentified in so-called “Islamophobic” incidents⁵.

This lack of oversight has been criticised in Parliament by Baroness Fox of Buckley⁶ and flagged by civil liberties groups including the Free Speech Union, the National Secular Society, and researchers at Policy Exchange⁷. Some working group members have known affiliations with Islamist-linked advocacy networks, raising serious questions about the group’s ideological balance and institutional objectivity⁸.

Peers Speak Out
In a letter dated 14 July 2025, more than thirty peers—including Lord Moylan, Baroness Fox, Lord Frost, and Baroness Deech—raised additional red flags. They warned that the definition, if endorsed by government, will likely be embedded across the public sector: in universities, schools, NHS trusts, councils, regulatory bodies, and the courts⁹. They cite the case of Sir Trevor Phillips, suspended by Labour in 2020 under a non-statutory Islamophobia code, and warn that future disciplinary processes could follow the same path.

The letter also warns of a false sense of effectiveness. They note that the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism has not curbed antisemitic hate incidents—especially in the wake of the Hamas attacks of October 2023—and that there is no evidence that defining Islamophobia would reduce hate crime against Muslims¹⁰.

The Grooming Gang Scandal
One of the strongest arguments raised is that vague and ideologically slanted definitions have historically suppressed whistleblowing. Baroness Casey’s National Audit found that police officers, councillors, and journalists failed to raise concerns about grooming gangs in towns like Rotherham and Telford because of fear they would be labelled “Islamophobic”¹¹. Indeed, public figures who did speak out—such as Sarah Champion MP and feminist campaigner Julie Bindel—were denounced by advocacy groups and nominated for “Islamophobe of the Year” awards.

Conflating Faith and Hatred
The peers urge Mr Grieve to drop the word “Islamophobia” altogether. They argue that the term blurs the crucial distinction between hatred of Muslims (a moral and legal evil) and criticism of Islam (a fundamental right in a free society). The term anti-Muslim hatred better names the wrong—targeting persons, not ideas. As they point out, this approach aligns with the Public Order Act 1986 and the Equality Act 2010, both of which protect individuals from religiously aggravated offences without prohibiting theological debate.

Proposed Solutions
The peers make four key recommendations:

  • Broaden the Working Group to include non-Muslim religious voices and free speech advocates;
  • Postpone any formal recommendations until the national inquiry into grooming gangs concludes;
  • Drop the word Islamophobia from any proposed terminology;
  • Submit any definition to full parliamentary scrutiny before government adoption¹².

Why the Words Matter
Catholics have a vital interest in this debate. Our fidelity to revealed truth requires us to proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the unique claims of the Gospel—claims which Islam explicitly denies. This must never be pathologised as hate. The terms anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice are morally precise and legally sufficient. The term Islamophobia, by contrast, is a political invention used to place one religious worldview beyond critique.

Let the government name the evil clearly: hatred of persons, not scrutiny of religion. And let Catholics, with clarity and charity, defend both truth and freedom.

  1. Letter to Dominic Grieve KC, 14 July 2025, p. 3.
  2. Ibid., p. 2.
  3. All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018).
  4. UK Government, Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia: Terms of Reference (March 2025).
  5. The Spectator, “The Islamophobia Working Group is Unbalanced and Opaque,” April 2025.
  6. Baroness Claire Fox, Parliamentary debate, Hansard, 20 March 2024.
  7. PoliticsHome, “Concerns Raised Over Lack of Diversity in Islamophobia Working Group,” May 2025.
  8. Policy Exchange / FWI Report, “Renewed Effort to Stifle Free Speech in the UK,” June 2025.
  9. Letter to Dominic Grieve KC, 14 July 2025, p. 3.
  10. Ibid., p. 4.
  11. Ibid., p. 7.
  12. Ibid., p. 10.

Quiet Conformity: The New RSHE Mandates and the State’s Imposition of Gender Ideology

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

How England’s updated sex education guidance undermines parental rights, marginalises religious truth, and reshapes children’s identity through legal compulsion.

In July 2025, the Department for Education quietly issued a revised version of its Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) Statutory Guidance, replacing the 2019 framework that had shaped England’s approach to teaching children about relationships, sex, and wellbeing. While couched in cautious bureaucratic language, this updated guidance deepens the ideological commitments of its predecessor—particularly in relation to the affirmation of gender ideology in both primary and secondary education.Subscribed

The new statutory document reasserts the primacy of the Equality Act 2010, stating that schools “must ensure that they comply with the relevant provisions” of that Act, under which “sexual orientation and gender reassignment are amongst the protected characteristics”¹. As in the 2019 edition, gender reassignment is treated not merely as a category for legal non-discrimination, but as a legitimate and affirmed identity to be integrated into school life and curriculum. In practice, this compels schools to treat a child’s declaration of transgender identification as a protected personal reality, and any failure to do so could be classed as discriminatory.

The curriculum expectations are unequivocal. The guidance mandates that “all pupils [are] to have been taught LGBT content at a timely point as part of this area of the curriculum”². This is to be “fully integrated into their programmes of study… rather than delivered as a stand-alone unit or lesson”³. In other words, affirming LGBT content—including trans-identification—is no longer optional, even for schools with religious character.

This development is more than pedagogical; it is ideological. The 2025 guidance instructs schools to “avoid language which might normalise harmful behaviour among young people—for example gendered language which might normalise male violence or stigmatise boys”⁴. Though framed as safeguarding advice, such language mirrors the ideological presuppositions of radical gender theory: that traditional sex distinctions are not only outdated but potentially harmful, and that gender itself is a social construct detached from biological reality.

While the document nominally allows schools with a religious character to “teach the distinctive faith perspective on relationships,” it immediately qualifies this by insisting that “teaching should reflect the law (including the Equality Act 2010) as it applies to relationships”⁵. Thus, a Catholic school may still teach the Church’s anthropology—that man is created male and female, that sex and gender are not severable—but it may not do so in a way that would undermine or fail to affirm transgender identification, lest it fall afoul of equality legislation. The Church’s witness is thereby marginalised, tolerated only within limits set by the State.

This has profound implications for parental rights and religious liberty. While the guidance upholds the right of parents to request withdrawal from sex education, it reaffirms that there is “no right to withdraw their pupils from relationships and health education”⁶—subjects that now regularly include ideological content on gender identity, relationships, and sexuality. Nor may parents prevent children from being taught about transgenderism in integrated contexts under the banner of inclusion or safeguarding. From three terms before their sixteenth birthday, the child may override even a parent’s request to withdraw from sex education⁷.

The erosion of natural and moral categories does not stop at curriculum content. The RSHE guidance, though not primarily focused on facilities, indirectly affirms policies that challenge the integrity of single-sex spaces. By insisting that schools create environments that are “inclusive of all pupils” and that they avoid any action that “discriminates against protected characteristics”—including gender reassignment—it places institutional pressure on schools to accommodate self-declared gender identity in areas such as toilets and changing rooms. However, what the guidance omits is just as telling: it does not affirm, clarify, or remind schools of their existing legal right to maintain single-sex facilities under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010, which permits such provision where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”⁸

In fact, schools are still legally entitled to provide toilets, showers, and changing spaces separated by biological sex, especially in consideration of safeguarding, dignity, and privacy. Yet by failing to state this explicitly, the Department leaves headteachers and governors exposed to activist pressure and confusion—inviting the assumption that to limit access to facilities based on sex, rather than gender identity, would be discriminatory. In reality, it remains lawful for schools to provide single-sex spaces and to make case-by-case decisions about access, particularly where safeguarding or the rights of other pupils are concerned⁹.

In this way, the State places itself not only as the provider of education, but as the final arbiter of human identity. It is not simply transmitting knowledge, but shaping the self-understanding of the child—defining what it means to be a person, a man, a woman, a moral actor. As Catholics, we must reject such an overreach. It is not the role of the State to dictate the content of the human soul, nor to impose a pseudo-anthropology that severs body from identity, nature from vocation, and freedom from truth.

The Church teaches with clarity and compassion that our identity is not self-constructed, but divinely given. “Male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). This foundational truth about human nature is not a matter of bigotry or fear, but of love—of fidelity to the God who made us, and to the flourishing He desires for each person.

It is not enough for Catholic educators to quietly comply, nor for parents to outsource their children’s moral formation to an ideologically compromised system. We must act. Catholic schools must form the whole person in truth—not only in religious instruction, but across the curriculum. Parents must reclaim their rightful role as the first educators of their children. And the Church must equip its faithful to resist the slow imposition of untruth through policy dressed in pastoral concern.

Where the State demands silent assent, we must respond with faithful witness. Where the culture says affirm, we must have the courage to say no—not out of malice, but out of love for the child, for truth, and for the God who is Truth incarnate.

Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share

  1. RSHE Statutory Guidance – July 2025, p. 36.
  2. Ibid., p. 36.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid., p. 5.
  5. Ibid., p. 37.
  6. Ibid., p. 6.
  7. Ibid., p. 6.
  8. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraph 27.
  9. Department for Education, Gender Questioning Children: Non-Statutory Guidance for Schools in England, December 2023.

When Change Becomes a Creed: The Crisis of Continuity in Church and Culture

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

Why Cardinal Goh’s “Adapting to Change” reveals not renewal, but rupture—and how the same error is collapsing the West from within

The July 2025 reflection by Cardinal William Goh of Singapore, titled Adapting to Change, arrives at a time when the Church is facing profound upheaval. His meditation—presented as a scriptural and pastoral exhortation—functions in reality as a theological statement: namely, that change is intrinsic to fidelity, and that without adaptation, tradition becomes sterile and irrelevant.

This premise, though expressed with spiritual sincerity, raises significant concerns for the faithful. It proposes a model of theological development that blurs the boundaries between immutable truth and mutable practice—one that has contributed to the ongoing crisis of identity, doctrine, and liturgy in the post conciliar Church.Subscribed

Change as a Theological Imperative?
Cardinal Goh’s core thesis is that “not changing is being unfaithful to our past,” and that even theological expression must evolve in order to preserve relevance.¹ He maintains that while doctrine cannot change, theology “is always evolving,” and that a failure to re-express truth in new forms risks rendering the Christian message “redundant, if not irrelevant.”²

He applies this logic to traditional practices such as fasting and penance, but most significantly to the Mass itself. The Eucharist, he argues, has undergone constant change since apostolic times, and must continue to change so as to remain “faithful to its original meaning yet relevant to our times.”³

Yet this view omits the vital distinction between authentic development and doctrinal mutation. It conflates adaptation in delivery with alteration in content. The Church does not maintain her relevance by reshaping her message to fit each era’s preferences. Rather, she remains the enduring sign of contradiction in every generation—her witness sharpened, not softened, by fidelity to what is eternal.

St. Vincent of Lérins and the Rule of Tradition
The true measure of change in the Church is not pastoral expediency or sociological effectiveness, but fidelity to the rule of faith. As St. Vincent of Lérins taught, genuine development must occur eodem sensu eademque sententia—“according to the same sense and the same judgment.”⁴ Any theological development that reinterprets the meaning of doctrine, rather than clarifying or deepening it, must be rejected.

Cardinal Goh’s suggestion that tradition demands constant re-expression fails to account for this distinction. If change is made the criterion of fidelity, then the deposit of faith becomes plastic—shaped by the moods of the age rather than grounded in divine revelation.

Liturgy and the Myth of Continuous Evolution
The notion that the Roman Rite has always changed and therefore must continue to do so requires qualification. Organic development—yes. Radical rupture—no. The received liturgy of the Church, from the earliest Eucharistic prayers to the codified Roman Canon, developed slowly and reverently across centuries. The upheavals of the late 20th century, by contrast, introduced discontinuities in structure, language, orientation, and theology. These were not “new wineskins,” but a new vessel altogether.

If we are to preserve the Mass as a true participation in the heavenly liturgy, as taught by the Fathers and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent, then it must be protected from innovation that compromises its sacrificial nature, its vertical orientation, and its mystical continuity with the worship of the saints.

Penance and the Collapse of Catholic Memory
Cardinal Goh rightly laments the decline in penitential discipline following the modern substitution of individual choice for communal practice. Friday abstinence, once a unifying sign of Catholic identity and solidarity with Christ’s Passion, has become optional and largely forgotten.⁵

This erosion of visible markers of faith is not the result of failing to adapt, but of adapting unwisely—abandoning discipline in the name of flexibility. The ancient practices of fasting, abstinence, and liturgical observance do not need to be rebranded for relevance; they need to be restored with reverence.

The Danger of Ambiguity
The greatest danger in Cardinal Goh’s reflection is not its call for spiritual attentiveness, but its lack of theological precision. Phrases such as “theology is always evolving” and “we must be in sync with the times” risk reducing revealed truth to a negotiable category. The Church does not exist to keep pace with the world, but to call the world to repentance and conversion.

Christ is not “new wine” in the sense of novelty, but in the sense of divine fulfilment. The parable of the wineskins is not an endorsement of constant reinvention, but a warning: when new forms are poured into unsuitable structures, both the wine and the vessel are lost (Mt 9:17).

The Secular Parallel: Cultural Collapse by Innovation
This theological tendency toward perpetual adaptation finds an uncanny mirror in secular culture. The post-Christian West is governed by a similar fallacy: that all progress is necessarily good, that inherited wisdom must be deconstructed, and that anything old is by definition oppressive.

From architecture to education, morality to medicine, Western societies have adopted the same creed: change equals virtue. Thus, classical learning has been supplanted by identity politics, marriage by contractual fluidity, and the natural law by arbitrary feelings. This is not progress—it is cultural amnesia, a forgetting not only of who we are but of what it means to be human.

The logic of Cardinal Goh’s “dynamic fidelity,” applied outside the Church, leads to grotesque results: sex reassignment in children, the redefinition of family, euthanasia for the lonely, and sacrilegious celebrations masquerading as mercy. When truth becomes negotiable, power fills the void. When identity is fluid, tyranny is inevitable.

Conclusion: Fidelity Means Preservation, Not Innovation
True progress in the Church is measured not by novelty, but by deeper immersion in the mystery already revealed. The Catholic tradition is not an empty shell awaiting reinterpretation, but a living heritage handed down with authority and guarded by the Holy Spirit.

As the Church faces increasing pressure to adapt her doctrines, redefine her sacraments, and restructure her identity, it is essential to recall the timeless counsel of the Fathers: What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all must remain the criterion of truth.⁶

To preserve the faith is not to resist growth, but to ensure that every development is faithful in content and form to the one deposit entrusted to the saints. Let the Church adapt only insofar as she never ceases to be the Church—and let society repent of its own blind embrace of change before it forgets what truth is altogether.

Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share

¹ Cardinal William Goh, “Adapting to Change,” 5 July 2025, Facebook Reflection.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 23.
⁵ Goh, “Adapting to Change.”
⁶ St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 2.

Public Sin and Ecclesial Responsibility: The Forgotten Meaning of the Confiteor

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

“I confess to Almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned…”

These familiar words from the Confiteor, recited at the beginning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, are not a mere liturgical formality. They are a declaration—before God and before the Church—that our sins, even when privately conceived, affect the whole Body of Christ. The phrase “and to you, my brothers and sisters” is not poetic embellishment. It is a solemn admission that we are accountable to one another because we are mystically united in the Communion of Saints.

The Church’s Ancient Witness: Public Penance as Restoration
In the early Church, this accountability was visibly enacted. Grave sins, particularly those causing public scandal, were confessed publicly before the congregation. In the medieval Church, this developed into the rite of public penance, where notorious sinners were ritually expelled on Ash Wednesday by the bishop and only readmitted to the sacraments after a period of visible penance, culminating in solemn reconciliation on Maundy Thursday. These rites were not acts of humiliation but of restoration—remedies applied by the Church to heal her members and preserve her witness.

The Crisis Today: Silence in the Face of Manifest Grave Sin
This principle—public sin demands public repentance—has been tragically obscured in modern times, especially in the realm of politics. In the name of tolerance, diplomacy, or false mercy, the Church now too often treats grave public scandal as a private spiritual matter. But silence in the face of manifest sin is not mercy; it is pastoral abandonment. It leaves the sinner in peril, misleads the faithful, and weakens the Church’s public witness.

A Grave Parliamentary Offense
On 17 June 2025, the House of Commons passed Clause 191 of the Crime and Policing Bill, effectively decriminalising abortion up to and including birth. It is the most radical change to British abortion law in over fifty years. Among the 379 MPs who voted for this barbaric provision were thirteen self-professed Catholics. Some also supported the legalisation of assisted suicide—undermining the Church’s constant teaching on the inviolability of human life. These votes were not cast in ignorance or ambiguity, but with full knowledge of the Church’s moral law.

The Named Offenders

Those MPs include:

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour – Salford)
  • Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Labour – Mitcham & Morden)
  • Andy McDonald (Labour – Middlesbrough & Thornaby)
  • Dr Ben Spencer (Conservative – Runnymede & Weybridge)
  • Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat – Dorking & Horley)
  • Dan Aldridge (Labour – Weston-super-Mare)
  • Kevin Bonavia (Labour – Stevenage)
  • David Chadwick (Liberal Democrat – Brecon, Radnor & Cwm Tawe)
  • Colum Eastwood (SDLP – Foyle)
  • Florence Eshalomi (Labour & Co-op – Vauxhall)
  • Claire Hanna (SDLP – Belfast South & Mid Down)
  • Pat McFadden (Labour – Wolverhampton South East)
  • Oliver Ryan (Independent – Burnley)

To date, there has been no public act of repentance, no retraction, no clarification, and no statement of conscience from any of them. If, by the grace of God, any one of them has since repented, confessed, and been absolved, then that too should be made known publicly, as the sin was public and caused grave scandal to the faithful.

The Distinction Between Public and Private Sin
This reflects a crucial and often misunderstood distinction in Catholic moral teaching between private sin and public sin:

  • Private sin is known only to the individual (or a few), and its harm is primarily internal—against one’s own soul and relationship with God. These sins are rightly confessed in the secrecy of the confessional, where grace heals in silence.
  • Public sin, however, is committed openly or is widely known—especially by those in positions of visibility or influence. Its effects are external and communal: it wounds the unity of the Church, confuses the faithful, and leads others into error by scandal—that is, the sin of causing others to stumble (cf. Matt. 18:6).

Scandal and the Duty of Correction
Scandal, in Catholic teaching, is not merely about causing offense. It is about causing spiritual harm by leading others to believe that sin is acceptable. When a public figure who claims to be Catholic knowingly promotes abortion or euthanasia, and suffers no ecclesial consequence, the result is a false witness—one that suggests Catholic doctrine can be disregarded without penalty.

Answering Objections: Is Public Reproof Uncharitable?
Some argue that it is uncharitable or unjust to publicly call out these MPs. But this objection misunderstands the nature of mercy, correction, and authority.

Catholic tradition, Scripture, and canon law are united on this point: public sin requires public correction. As St. Paul exhorts, “Them that sin, reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear” (1 Tim 5:20). St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that where scandal arises from public sin, it must be corrected publicly, lest others be led into the same error (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 7).

Charity is not the avoidance of discomfort. It is the willing of the true good of the other. To allow Catholic legislators to persist in sacrilege while maintaining public communion with the Church is not merciful—it is cruel.

The Role of Bishops and the Laity
That is why Canon 915 obliges ministers of Holy Communion to withhold the Sacrament from those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.” This is not a punishment but a safeguard—for the dignity of the Eucharist, the integrity of the Church, and the salvation of the person in error.

The bishops of the Church bear a particular responsibility here. As successors of the Apostles, they are not only private pastors but public guardians of the faith. When they fail to admonish Catholic public officials who defy the Church in grave matters, they share in the scandal by omission.

The laity, too, are not exempt. The Confiteor reminds each of us that sin—even when secret—has consequences for others. When the faithful fail to insist on coherence between public action and professed belief, they allow falsehood to masquerade as fidelity.

The Goal: Restoration Through Visible Repentance
Yet the goal is not exclusion but reconciliation. The Church longs to welcome back the sinner—but repentance must come first. The Confiteor ends not in condemnation but in hope: “Pray for me to the Lord our God.”

If any of the MPs who voted against life and truth were to repent, confess, and publicly amend their error, the Church should receive them with joy. But that repentance must be visible. For where the sin was public, the healing must be public too.

Conclusion: A Call to Fidelity and Courage
In our time, the Church must recover the clarity of her Tradition and the courage of her saints. Only then can she speak with authority to a world that has forgotten what sin is, and no longer believes in grace.

First published on Selsey Substack

  1. Code of Canon Law, Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
  2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1385: “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”
  3. For the list of MPs and their votes, see The Catholic Herald, 6 July 2025.
  4. On the nature and necessity of public penance, cf. Dom Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, and Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, vol. II.
  5. On the distinction between public and private sin, cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 7.
  6. On scandal and its gravity, cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§2284–2287.
  7. On ecclesial correction as an act of charity, cf. Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, and St. Catherine of Siena, Letters, esp. to Pope Gregory XI.

Open Letter to Zöe Franklin MP on the Assisted Dying Bill

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

On 24 June 2025, Liberal Democrat MP for Guildford, Zöe Franklin, gave an interview to Premier Christian News explaining her decision to support the Assisted Dying Bill, which recently passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. In that interview, Ms Franklin described the Bill as “safe, compassionate and carefully regulated,” and stated that her Christian faith informed her vote. She expressed the view that God “is not content” with the suffering of those unable to access assisted death and argued that such inequality is unjust.

In response, Archbishop Jerome Lloyd of the Old Roman Apostolate has issued an open letter, published below, addressing the moral, theological, and legislative concerns raised by Ms Franklin’s position.

The Archbishop’s letter engages not only with the doctrinal incompatibility of assisted suicide with the Christian faith, but also with the serious legal, medical, and ethical implications of the Bill. Drawing on official statements from multiple Royal Colleges—including the Physicians, Psychiatrists, General Practitioners, Pathologists, and Surgeons—the letter underscores widespread professional alarm about the Bill’s deficiencies in safeguarding the vulnerable, ensuring clinical oversight, and preserving the integrity of end-of-life care.

The letter also reflects the consistent moral teaching of the Church on the sanctity of human life, the nature of true compassion, and the dangers of allowing emotionalism to guide public policy.

This intervention is part of the Old Roman Apostolate’s broader mission to defend the dignity of the human person and bear witness to perennial Catholic teaching in the public square. It is offered in a spirit of respectful engagement, pastoral concern, and moral clarity.

FranklinAD260525SELDownload

The Eclipse of Woman: How Modern Feminism Undermined Womanhood in the Pursuit of Equality

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

This essay traces the evolution of feminism from its early pursuit of justice to its modern contradictions—highlighting how efforts to achieve equality have, over time, eclipsed the very identity of womanhood. Though written as objectively as possible, the argument may be controversial: it contends that feminism’s rejection of sexual difference, adoption of androgyny, and embrace of abortion has unintentionally obscured the feminine it once sought to honour.

Feminism and Its Contradictions: From Equality to Erasure

Modern feminism, though rooted in aspirations for justice and the recognition of women’s inherent dignity, has over successive waves evolved into a movement often characterised by contradictions and internal ironies. From the claim that women are fundamentally the same as men, to campaigns that rely on unequal treatment to achieve “equality,” to the adoption of male patterns of behaviour and language, and finally to the modern crisis of gender identity in which womanhood is no longer a stable or defensible category, the feminist movement has undergone a series of paradoxical transformations. This essay outlines those developments and considers their broader implications.

I. From Equality in Dignity to Sameness in Nature

First-wave feminism, emerging primarily in the 19th and early 20th centuries, centred on legal and civic recognition for women based on their shared human dignity with men. These early feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Millicent Fawcett, fought for women’s suffrage, access to education, and rights in property and marriage law. Their arguments were often grounded in Enlightenment ideals of human reason and, crucially, in Christian anthropology, which affirmed that men and women were equal in the eyes of God, both made in His image.

The appeal was not for androgyny but for justice. Women, they argued, possessed reason, moral agency, and the ability to contribute to public life just as men did, albeit in ways proper to their own nature. Stanton famously wrote, “The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education… is the sacredness of her individuality.”¹ This assertion reflected a worldview in which difference did not imply inequality.

However, the second wave of feminism, emerging in the post-war years and gaining momentum in the 1960s and 70s, departed from this principle. Influenced by existentialist philosophy (especially Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir), Marxist critiques of the family, and Freudian theories of repression, second-wave feminism introduced a profound conceptual shift: from equality of dignity to equality of identity and function. The new feminism no longer simply demanded recognition of women as rational beings but insisted that the distinctions between men and women themselves were arbitrary, imposed, and oppressive.

De Beauvoir’s claim that “One is not born, but becomes, a woman”² became the foundational maxim of this shift. It proposed that femininity itself was a social construct—something imposed by patriarchal structures and internalised by women through cultural conditioning. Consequently, traditional roles such as motherhood, domesticity, and nurturance were not to be honoured or protected, but deconstructed as instruments of female subjugation.

This philosophical shift led to a redefinition of liberation: not as the free exercise of virtue in accordance with a woman’s nature, but as the ability to transcend or reject that nature altogether. Women were encouraged to join the workforce, delay or avoid motherhood, and adopt a lifestyle shaped by autonomy, productivity, and sexual independence. In doing so, the standard of success subtly but decisively shifted to male norms.

Mary Harrington, a contemporary feminist critic of this trajectory, writes, “Sexual differences are now increasingly seen as obstacles to be overcome rather than truths to be understood.”³ The result was not the elevation of femininity but its functional elimination in public discourse. The distinctiveness of womanhood was not protected but traded for access to male-coded forms of power—often in the corporate or political sphere—thereby implying that traditional feminine contributions had no inherent value.

II. From Imitation to Erasure: Vice, Contraception, and Abortion

A significant and often overlooked turning point in feminist thought occurred when the movement shifted from challenging the moral failings of men to imitating them. Whereas early feminists critiqued male patterns of sexual irresponsibility, violence, and exploitation, later feminist rhetoric began to valorise these very traits—so long as they were enacted by women. The rise of “sex-positive feminism” in the late 20th century reframed promiscuity, aggression, and emotional detachment not as societal problems, but as marks of female empowerment.

This moral inversion was reinforced by the technologies and ideologies of the sexual revolution. The introduction of the contraceptive Pill in the 1960s was heralded as a means of liberation, allowing women to decouple sex from reproduction. But it also subtly transferred the responsibility for fertility management—and therefore the burden of consequence—entirely onto women. As Mary Eberstadt has observed, the Pill “allowed men to have sex without consequence, while encouraging women to behave as if their bodies responded to sex the same way male bodies did.”⁴

Rather than elevating womanhood, this dynamic incentivised women to conform to male sexual expectations. Chemical contraception suppressed the natural rhythms of the female body, and the culture surrounding it normalised emotional detachment as a precondition for social acceptance.

Abortion, presented as a safeguard when contraception failed, entrenched this logic further. It reframed the unborn child not as a person in need of protection but as an obstacle to autonomy. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous “violinist” analogy typified this view, likening pregnancy to involuntary organ donation.⁵ Motherhood was thus portrayed not as a natural vocation but as a contingent burden.

Feminism increasingly treated these technologies as essential instruments of freedom, yet their effects were structurally disempowering. Women were told they could be truly equal only if they suppressed or denied the very biological functions that make them distinctively female. In doing so, the feminist project turned against its own foundation.

As Erika Bachiochi has shown, the cultural result has not been greater solidarity between men and women, but a radical asymmetry in which women carry the full cost of a libertine sexual economy: “Abortion rights have enabled a cultural shift in which men are no longer expected to make lifelong commitments to women with whom they father children.”⁶

In short, the feminist embrace of contraception and abortion has not freed women, but has redefined womanhood itself as a problem to be fixed. What was once a cause centred on the dignity of the female body has become a movement dedicated to its management and erasure.

III. Linguistic Androgyny and Symbolic Self-Erasure

Language both reflects and shapes reality. It encodes not only social conventions but cultural values and metaphysical assumptions. Recognising this, second-wave feminists turned their attention to the structures of language as a site of “patriarchal dominance.” Words such as actress, hostess, stewardess, and priestess—once ordinary descriptors of female roles—were reinterpreted as diminutive or derivative. These terms, feminists argued, marginalised women by suggesting that the female version of a role was somehow lesser or secondary to its male counterpart.

This linguistic critique gained influence through the work of feminist theorists such as Dale Spender and Deborah Cameron, who insisted that “man-made language” reinforced a male-centred worldview and needed deconstruction.⁷ Their proposed solution was not to elevate feminine terms, but to eliminate them—replacing gender-specific titles with ostensibly neutral or male-derived forms: actor, chairperson, server, priest.

What appeared to be a linguistic reform toward neutrality was, in fact, an act of symbolic erasure. Rather than affirming and dignifying the feminine as something worthy of cultural articulation, feminism adopted a linguistic strategy that made womanhood invisible. In seeking to escape male dominance, it assimilated the male standard so thoroughly that female distinctiveness disappeared.

Roger Scruton captured the deeper implications of this move when he observed, “The desire to eliminate all traces of sexual distinction from public life often results in the masculinization of female presence rather than its dignification.”⁸

What this linguistic agenda reveals is not merely an effort to expand representation but to sever language from nature—an attempt to unmoor vocabulary from biological and ontological truth. The feminine is no longer spoken as something real and rooted, but recoded as a contingent identity to be included, negotiated, or erased.

IV. Positive Discrimination and the Paradox of “Equity”

Modern feminism increasingly embraced the politics of positive discrimination—seeking not equality before the law, but equality of outcomes. In contrast to the first-wave demand for impartiality and merit-based access, late 20th- and early 21st-century feminism embraced quotas, affirmative action, and preferential policies designed to correct supposed “structural imbalances.”

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 permits “positive action” under Section 158 when “persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage, have different needs, or have low participation in an activity.”⁹ Feminist advocates have defended such measures as necessary to undo centuries of exclusion. Yet in practice, this often results in institutionalising the very inequality it claims to overcome.

Positive discrimination introduces a conceptual paradox: in order to achieve “equity,” individuals must be treated unequally based on group identity. The same ideology that insists women are just as capable as men simultaneously insists that women cannot succeed without structural advantages, special training programs, or legislative exemptions. Merit becomes suspect, and competence is often overshadowed by the optics of representation.

Moreover, these interventions are rarely symmetrical. Where women are overrepresented—such as in university admissions or certain healthcare roles—there is no equivalent push to redress imbalance in favour of men. “Equity” is selectively applied, always in favour of the politically dominant narrative rather than genuine balance.

The deeper irony lies in how this approach undermines both excellence and solidarity. Women who achieve success in male-dominated fields under quota regimes may find their competence questioned—assumed to be the product of policy rather than ability. Meanwhile, men excluded from opportunities on the basis of sex alone increasingly view feminism not as a pursuit of justice, but as a politics of exclusion and resentment.

V. Identity Politics and the Triumph of Male Over Female

The most radical and internally destructive development within modern feminism has come through its alignment with gender identity ideology. Having spent decades rejecting essentialist definitions of womanhood, mainstream feminism now insists that “woman” is a self-declared identity, untethered from biology. The contradiction is clear: in trying to liberate women from fixed categories, feminism has made womanhood indefinable.

In 2022, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define “woman.” She replied: “I’m not a biologist.”¹⁰ That evasive response symbolised a movement unable—or unwilling—to state what a woman is.

This has enabled biological males who identify as “women” to enter female-only spaces: sports, prisons, shelters, and awards. In athletics, men identifying as women now routinely outperform female athletes.¹¹ The very spaces feminists once fought to create for women are now occupied by male bodies.

Feminists who object—such as Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel—have been ostracised and branded transphobic. As Mary Harrington notes, “The trans woman is not a woman who has been freed from the constraints of her biology, but a man whose self-perception is prioritised above the reality of women.”¹²

Feminism, having unmoored itself from biology and nature, cannot now mount a coherent defence of the female. The category it once fought for no longer has meaning. Its enemies, long defeated, have returned—this time in disguise.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Self-Destruction

The historical arc of feminism—beginning with the pursuit of justice and recognition, and culminating in the denial of womanhood itself—presents not a story of unbroken progress, but a cautionary tale of conceptual unraveling. What began as a movement to affirm the dignity of women as women has, in its later stages, dismantled the very meaning of the term.

The irony is layered and devastating:

  • In the pursuit of equality, feminism adopted sameness, erasing sexual complementarity.
  • In the quest to overthrow male vice, it embraced and valorised promiscuity, aggression, and detachment, now recoded as empowerment.
  • In order to secure freedom, it promoted contraception and abortion, tools that suppress or terminate the very powers unique to womanhood.
  • In the name of equity, it justified inequality, institutionalising preferential treatment under the guise of fairness.
  • In defending inclusion, it tolerated and even celebrated the invasion of male bodies into female spaces—thereby subordinating actual women to ideological projections.

Each of these shifts reflects not merely a misstep, but a detachment from reality: from the biological, moral, and metaphysical truths that ground a coherent account of the human person. Feminism, in its radicalised form, has become a project not of emancipation but of abstraction—one that seeks liberation from the givenness of nature and the responsibility of relationship.

That which is not grounded will not stand. A feminism that cannot define what a woman is, that cannot honour her nature, nor defend her spaces, nor elevate her role as life-bearer and nurturer, has lost its moral compass. Indeed, it risks becoming a tool for the very forces it once opposed.

What remains is a task not just for feminists, but for all who care about truth and justice: to rebuild an understanding of womanhood that is neither romanticised nor denied; one that affirms equality without erasing difference; and one that protects female dignity not through sameness with men, but through the honouring of what is uniquely and gloriously feminine.

Only a return to truth—biological, philosophical, and theological—can restore coherence to this fractured discourse. If feminism is to mean anything at all, it must once again begin with the reality of woman.

Footnotes

  1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible, 1895.
  2. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H. M. Parshley (New York: Vintage, 1989), p. 267.
  3. Mary Harrington, Feminism Against Progress (Regnery, 2023), p. 45.
  4. Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution (Ignatius Press, 2012), p. 19.
  5. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1971), pp. 47–66.
  6. Erika Bachiochi, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision (University of Notre Dame Press, 2021), p. 203.
  7. Deborah Cameron, The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 87–91.
  8. Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Culture (St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), p. 88.
  9. Equality Act 2010, UK Parliament: Section 158 – Positive Action: General.
  10. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 23, 2022.
  11. See World Athletics rulings on transgender competitors, 2022–2023.
  12. Mary Harrington, Feminism Against Progress, p. 174.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

The Rule of Feeling: How Emotionalism Is Undermining Law and Public Reason

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

When feeling becomes law, justice falters

A marked feature of contemporary political discourse is the increasing prominence of emotionalism—the prioritisation of subjective feeling over objective reasoning—in shaping law and public policy. While empathy and moral awareness are essential in any humane society, the over-reliance on emotional appeals raises concerns about the coherence, stability, and justice of resulting legislation, particularly in areas requiring ethical nuance and long-term foresight.

Emotionalism, in this context, refers to the dominance of affective responses—such as compassion, outrage, or personal testimony—over empirical evidence, ethical reasoning, and consistent legal principle. In recent years, this tendency has become especially evident in debates over abortion, assisted suicide, gender identity, immigration, and education.

Legislating from Sentiment: Key Examples

In June 2025, Parliament voted to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, effectively decriminalising abortion and removing nearly all penalties for self-managed procedures in England and Wales¹. The debate was dominated by emotionally charged appeals rather than objective legal and ethical argument. Introducing the amendment, Dame Diana Johnson MP declared:

“Women who end a pregnancy need support, not the threat of a criminal trial. Imagine the trauma of a miscarriage, and then imagine being investigated by the police as though you were a criminal. That is happening in Britain today.”²

This statement exemplified the emotional framing of the reform: invoking miscarriage, trauma, and criminalisation to elicit moral urgency. Broader issues—such as gestational limits, post-viability protection, or the rights of the unborn—were largely eclipsed. Several pro-life MPs, including Kemi Badenoch, raised concern that the legislation eliminated prosecutorial safeguards and created the legal possibility of abortion up to birth in certain scenarios³.

What was conspicuously absent from the debate was any serious engagement with the implicit recognition of unborn human personhood—enshrined both in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and in the very structure of the Abortion Act 1967, which did not legalise abortion outright but instead made provisional exceptions to prosecution for what would otherwise be considered the unlawful killing of a person.

Instead, the chamber was swept along by emotionalist rhetoric that displaced reasoned reflection. This is not how legislators should approach questions of life and law. The deliberate unmaking of legal and moral precedent through rhetorical sleight and sentimental appeal is a betrayal of the dignity of parliamentary governance. When emotionalism supplants philosophical and juridical reasoning, it is not progress but regression—a descent into policymaking by pathos rather than principle.Subscribed

Parliament also voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (Assisted Dying) Bill, permitting physician-assisted suicide for patients with six months or fewer to live. Supporters frequently invoked themes of personal suffering and indignity. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater stated: *“Give dying people choice, autonomy, and dignity”*⁴. During earlier sessions, MPs recounted emotionally charged stories of watching loved ones die, often moving the chamber to tears⁵. One of the most poignant appeals came from Sir Stephen Timms MP, who said:

“I watched my wife’s mother suffer in the final weeks of her life. She was in pain, terrified, and crying out that she wanted it to be over. No one should be forced to endure that when they are beyond hope of recovery.”⁶

Such deeply personal narratives, while sincere, were used to frame legal change as a moral obligation. Critics of the bill warned that these sentiments, though powerful, were being used to justify significant shifts in the ethical foundations of medicine and end-of-life care—without adequate consideration of coercion, palliative alternatives, or the long-term societal impact.

One of the most striking features of the assisted suicide debate was the scant regard shown by many proponents for the views of professional medical bodies. Despite clear and publicised warnings from the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Colleges of General Practitioners and Psychiatrists, these objections were largely brushed aside⁷. Their concerns—ranging from the risks to vulnerable patients, to the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship—were eclipsed by emotionally driven assertions of individual autonomy. This marginalisation of institutional expertise demonstrates how emotionalism, when dominant, leads to policymaking detached from professional prudence and ethical safeguards.

This same emotional tenor is evident in UK policy concerning gender identity. NHS guidelines have endorsed gender-affirming interventions—including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—based on emotional imperatives such as alleviating distress and preventing suicide. However, the Cass Review (2024) found the evidence base for these interventions to be “remarkably weak,” and identified significant long-term risks⁸. The report further documented that some clinicians were reluctant to raise concerns for fear of reputational damage⁹.

In schools, the promotion of gender ideology has similarly leaned on emotional language. Pupils are often encouraged to express chosen identities and pronouns under the guise of kindness and support. Then-Education Secretary Gillian Keegan defended draft guidance by saying it “puts the best interests of all children first”¹⁰. However, as was noted in the House of Lords, “Actions such as changing names and pronouns are serious and can have a wider impact”¹¹—a sober warning easily drowned out by emotionally charged rhetoric about safeguarding and affirmation.

Immigration discourse likewise illustrates the prevalence of emotionalism. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper framed recent policy directions in explicitly moral terms: “Defend migrants and develop a system based on ‘compassion and dignity’… safe routes”¹². Yet emotional appeals, while well-intentioned, often obscure critical questions of integration, capacity, legality, and social cohesion. As one MP observed during debate: “The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place where everyone is being asked to take sides”¹³.

Undermining Legal Equality: Selective Application of the Equality Act

Nowhere is the replacement of law with sentiment more structurally apparent than in the inconsistent application of the Equality Act 2010. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “sex” in the Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity¹⁴. This affirmed that single-sex spaces and services—such as prisons, refuges, or sports—may lawfully exclude individuals on the basis of sex, even if they possess a Gender Recognition Certificate¹⁵.

Yet many public bodies continue to act as though the law says the opposite. The Scottish Government, for instance, retained guidance in schools allowing children to socially transition, use opposite-sex facilities, and be affirmed in their chosen identity without parental knowledge—prompting legal warnings from gender-critical campaigners¹⁶. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued ambiguous guidance suggesting institutions could sidestep sex-based segregation if done in the name of “inclusion”¹⁷.

This has resulted in a two-tier enforcement of the Act:

  • Women’s sex-based protections are increasingly bypassed under pressure to be “trans inclusive.”
  • Gender identity claims are privileged, even when in direct contradiction to statutory law and judicial interpretation.

The result is legal incoherence. In one setting, courts reject compelled pronoun usage for male defendants in rape trials¹⁸; in another, schools and workplaces encourage staff and pupils to treat gender identity as unquestionable and enforceable. Such inconsistency undermines the rule of law, public confidence, and the very integrity of protected characteristic legislation.Subscribed

The Dangers of Emotion-Driven Legislation

Legislation shaped primarily by emotionalism produces laws that are reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to ideological capture. Several structural risks are especially apparent:

1. Legal Incoherence and Loopholes
In the case of abortion, legal language driven by anecdotal urgency—rather than principled deliberation—resulted in ambiguous gestational boundaries and a lack of clarity on regulatory oversight. Law becomes selectively applied and difficult to defend.

2. Erosion of Professional Ethics
In medicine, emotion-led mandates can undermine professional conscience. Doctors may face pressure to participate in ethically questionable acts, particularly where the appeal to “choice” eclipses the deeper question of whether a given act is morally or clinically justifiable.

3. Weaponisation of Victimhood
Framing certain identity groups as emotionally untouchable—such as “trans youth” under threat of suicide—can result in the silencing of valid medical and educational concerns. The invocation of emotional harm becomes a veto on discussion itself.

4. Suppression of Dissent
Emotional narratives recast disagreement not as debate, but as moral offense. Those who raise concerns about abortion, gender ideology, or immigration policy are accused not of error, but of cruelty.

5. Undermining Rule of Law
When feeling replaces truth as the standard for law, justice becomes unstable. Laws cease to act as a rational safeguard for all and become instead an instrument of cultural mood, vulnerable to manipulation and volatility.

6. Infantilisation of Public Discourse
Finally, emotionalism discourages critical thought and the virtues of citizenship. Public reasoning is replaced by slogans, therapeutic mantras, and reactive policymaking, rendering society less capable of handling complex moral and social questions.

These are not new phenomena. In previous eras of cultural upheaval—the French Revolution being a prime example—reasoned deliberation gave way to emotional fervour, and the results were rarely just or lasting. The tendency to replace law with feeling, deliberation with passion, has historically opened the door to instability, injustice, and tyranny. As C.S. Lewis observed, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”

Restoring Moral Clarity in Lawmaking

To restore confidence in the rule of law and uphold the common good, a measured response is needed. Parliament could establish a requirement for independent ethical review for legislation concerning life, identity, and medicine. Institutions representing professional, legal, and civic reasoning must not be sidelined by emotionally charged advocacy. Public bodies must be required to align policy with judicial rulings, not activist guidance. The Equality Act must be enforced consistently—not ideologically.

A society ruled by feeling may be momentarily comforted—but it will not endure.

Footnotes
¹ The Telegraph, “MPs vote to allow abortion up to birth in UK law,” 18 June 2025.
² Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 2 June 2025, Dame Diana Johnson MP.
³ The Times, “Ministers likely to back ‘extreme’ plans to decriminalise abortion,” June 2025.
⁴ Kim Leadbeater MP, Hansard, 24 May 2025.
⁵ BBC News, “Commons supports assisted dying bill,” 24 May 2025.
⁶ Sir Stephen Timms MP, Hansard, 20 June 2025.
⁷ Royal College statements, March–May 2025.
⁸ Cass Review, April 2024.
⁹ Ibid., Chapters 6–7.
¹⁰ DfE Press Statement, December 2023.
¹¹ Hansard, House of Lords Debate, March 2024.
¹² Yvette Cooper, quoted in The Telegraph, 4 March 2025.
¹³ Hansard, Immigration Debate, February 2025.
¹⁴ For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, UK Supreme Court, April 2025.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ The Guardian, “Scottish government given deadline to implement biological sex ruling,” 18 June 2025.
¹⁷ EHRC Guidance, May 2025.
¹⁸ The Times, “Judges advised to reject rape defendants’ chosen pronouns,” June 2025.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

The Forgotten Premise of Equality

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

Recovering the Inherent Value of Human Life in a Postmodern World

In today’s public discourse, equality is frequently affirmed as a moral ideal. Yet how that ideal is applied can vary widely. From questions surrounding life’s beginning and end to debates about identity and medicine, deep tensions have emerged in our cultural understanding of what it means to be human. This essay offers a gentle but clear reflection: Can we still affirm equal dignity for all persons—consistently, coherently, and compassionately? Drawing from science, reason, and widely shared ethical principles, this is not an argument of ideology but of conscience.

Introduction

Modern societies often expect public moral debates to proceed without reference to religious belief. This approach, commonly described as pluralistic or secular, is intended to create fairness in diverse cultures. Yet even on this shared ground, we face unavoidable questions: Why should any human life be protected? What does it mean to be a person? What makes some actions right and others harmful?

Beginning from reason and shared civic assumptions, one finds that the case for the inherent value of every human life is not only defensible—it is profoundly humane. This essay traces that case from life’s earliest beginnings through questions of dignity, autonomy, and identity.

Human Life Begins at Conception

Biological science consistently teaches that human life begins at conception. At the moment of fertilisation, a distinct organism comes into being with its own genetic identity, oriented toward development as a human being. A 2018 study surveying over 5,000 biologists—representing a range of worldviews—found overwhelming agreement with this conclusion¹. Even prominent atheist thinker Richard Dawkins has acknowledged this biological fact².

The moral debate, then, is not over when life begins, but when it should be protected. Some argue that viability, consciousness, or independence should determine moral status. Yet these criteria are variable and fragile. They might exclude newborns, those with dementia, or the comatose. A consistent and inclusive ethic begins by recognising that if someone is human, their life merits protection—not because of what they can do, but because of who they are.

Dignity Is Not Earned—It Is Inherent

The cornerstone of modern human rights is the affirmation that every person possesses inherent dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with this premise: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”³. International covenants uphold rights as flowing from this dignity, not granted by governments or earned by abilities⁴.

This vision implies that human worth is not contingent on usefulness, awareness, or status. As ethicist John Tasioulas explains, dignity is not a reward for virtue or competence, but a condition of simply being human⁵.

This matters greatly. When we begin to ration dignity based on characteristics or capacities, we create hierarchies of humanity. History shows where that path leads. To protect the vulnerable, society must begin with the presumption that every human life—regardless of condition or circumstance—has equal moral worth.

Abortion Is Not Healthcare, Nor Is It a Reproductive Right

Public discussions often frame abortion as “healthcare” or a “reproductive right.” These labels, however, obscure more than they clarify.

Healthcare exists to heal disease and preserve life. But pregnancy is not a disease, and a fetus is not a tumour. Abortion ends a biologically healthy process and terminates a distinct human life⁶. It is not morally or medically neutral. For many women, abortion is followed by grief, regret, or emotional trauma. Research shows increased risks of depression, anxiety, and even suicidality following abortion⁷.

The term “reproductive right” also misleads. Reproduction has already occurred by the time a woman is pregnant. What’s at issue is not fertility control, but ending an already-conceived life. This distinction is crucial for ethical clarity.

A more compassionate framework would provide women with real alternatives—financial support, emotional care, and community resources—so that no woman feels she must choose between her child and her future.

The Body and the Question of Identity

Another cultural trend is the detachment of personal identity from the body. In abortion, the fetus’s body is treated as irrelevant. In gender ideology, one’s own body may be seen as an obstacle to identity. In both cases, biology is made secondary to subjective feeling.

This produces contradictions. A fetus may be regarded as a baby if wanted, or as medical waste if not. A minor too young to consent to a tattoo may be permitted to undergo irreversible procedures to alter sex characteristics. These are not edge cases—they are increasingly embedded in policy and practice¹³.

A more coherent anthropology sees the human person as a unity of body and soul, or body and mind. Our bodies are not accidents to be overcome; they are part of who we are. Respecting the person means respecting the whole person—body included.

The Tyranny of Choice

Modern moral discourse often treats autonomy as the supreme good. But freedom requires more than choice—it requires truth. A good choice presupposes some objective difference between good and evil, helpful and harmful.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once said, “No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother”⁹. But this formulation elevates choice above the thing chosen. It risks overlooking the rights of those who cannot choose—the unborn, the elderly, the dependent.

This also applies to assisted suicide. Proponents argue that ending one’s life is a matter of personal autonomy. But research from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal shows many people are motivated not by physical pain, but by fear of being a burden or by loneliness¹¹. Lord Sumption, speaking from the UK Supreme Court, warned that legalising assisted suicide may impose social pressure on the vulnerable to “do the decent thing” and opt for death¹².

True autonomy includes the freedom to live without coercion—whether economic, social, or medical. Compassion means accompanying those who suffer, not eliminating them.

A Question of Coherence

What binds all these trends together is a growing incoherence in how society defines and defends human life. A fetus lacks rights because it cannot speak for itself; an elderly person seeks assisted death for the same reason. A child is deemed too young to drink, vote, or marry, yet considered old enough to redefine their biological sex.

Such contradictions suggest that our ethical frameworks are being shaped more by ideology than by principle. If rights are grounded in feelings, utility, or social acceptance, then they can be withdrawn just as easily. Human dignity becomes conditional, not universal.

To remain just and humane, society must rediscover a consistent principle of equal worth—one that applies regardless of age, ability, desire, or circumstance.

Conclusion: A Shared Foundation for Human Worth

This essay has appealed not to religious doctrine but to reason, science, and conscience. It has sought to show that the inherent value of every human life is not a sectarian belief, but a foundation of civil society.

We may differ on many matters, but we can agree on this: every human being matters. Equality means more than fairness—it means recognising the profound worth of every person, especially those with the least power or visibility.

To recover that truth is not to impose faith, but to restore humanity. And in doing so, we reclaim the forgotten premise of equality—the only one on which a just and compassionate future can be built.

Footnotes
¹ Jacobs, S. (2018). Contemporary Biological Views on When Life Begins. University of Chicago Survey.
² Richard Dawkins, interview with Brendan O’Connor, RTÉ Radio 1, March 2012.
³ United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.
⁴ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Preamble.
⁵ Tasioulas, J. (2013). “Human Dignity and the Foundations of Human Rights.” In Understanding Human Dignity, British Academy.
⁶ American College of Pediatricians. (2017). “When Human Life Begins.”
⁷ Reardon, D.C. (2002). “The Aftermath of Abortion: A Review of Psychological Effects.” The Linacre Quarterly, 69(1), 29–41.
⁸ Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press.
⁹ Sanger, M. (1920). Woman and the New Race. Brentano’s.
¹⁰ Anderson, R. T. (2015). Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. Regnery Publishing.
¹¹ Oregon Health Authority. (2023). Death with Dignity Act Annual Reports.
¹² Sumption, J. (2014). UK Supreme Court Judgment in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice.
¹³ See e.g. California Penal Code §187(a); contrast with permissive state abortion laws.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

Legally Dead: The Collapse of Moral Law in Britain

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3)

This week, the United Kingdom has crossed a dreadful moral threshold. In the span of just a few days, Parliament has voted first to decriminalise abortion—effectively permitting self-managed termination of life in the womb up to birth—and then to legalise so-called “assisted dying,” a misleading phrase for what is in truth state-sanctioned suicide. Two votes. One message: life is no longer sacred.

When legislators permit the destruction of the most vulnerable—the unborn child, the despairing sick, the elderly whose existence has become burdensome—they do not merely alter policy. They strike at the heart of justice itself. The right to life is not one among many rights—it is the ground upon which all others stand. Without it, the edifice of rights becomes a hollow facade, masking cruelty with euphemism.

The Illusion of Compassion

It is claimed, in both cases, that these measures represent progress—greater autonomy for women, greater dignity for the dying. But autonomy cannot mean the right to destroy another, nor can dignity be made dependent upon the absence of suffering. To offer death as a solution to distress is not compassion; it is surrender. It betrays a society that has forgotten how to suffer with, how to love, and how to protect.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that human law derives its legitimacy from the natural law, which is itself a participation in the eternal law of God.¹ When a human law contradicts the natural law—when it permits murder under the guise of mercy—it is no true law, but rather an act of violence cloaked in legality.

And as Pope Pius XII solemnly declared:

“The life of one who is innocent is untouchable, and any direct attempt… to kill… is a violation of one of the fundamental laws without which secure human society is impossible.”²

The votes cast in Westminster this week were not victories for justice, but capitulations to despair.Subscribed

Death by Emotionalism

The culture of death in Britain was not ushered in by force of logic, constitutional principle, or sober legal debate. It was won—decisively—through emotional manipulation. The parliamentary votes that removed legal protection from the unborn and invited suicide into the framework of care were secured not by reasoned argument but by the power of sentiment, tears, and selective storytelling.

In place of philosophy, we were given pathos. In place of principle, personalities. Members of Parliament stood not to defend justice, but to emote. And those who dared to speak of moral absolutes or natural law were treated not as defenders of tradition, but as heartless ideologues resisting “progress.”

This is not lawmaking. It is theatre.

One need not deny the suffering of individuals to see the danger in allowing public policy to be dictated by feeling. Compassion is not the enemy of justice—but sentimentality often is. For sentimentality demands outcomes that feel good rather than ones that are good, and it sacrifices the unseen, the unborn, and the inconvenient at the altar of emotional relief. In the absence of objective moral standards, emotion becomes tyrant.

The great irony is that modern man, having prided himself on “rationalism,” now makes law by anecdote and weeps his way into barbarism. As Pope Pius XII warned:

“It is not emotion or feeling that guides to the truth, but reason enlightened by faith.”³

And yet, it was the secular philosophers themselves who paved the way. David Hume famously wrote:

“Morality is determined by sentiment… Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular.”⁴

A culture that accepts such a premise will eventually legislate on the basis of tears, not truth.

The sanctity of life is not subject to public sentiment. The right to live is not decided by polls, headlines, or individual hardship. Yet this week, Britain proved that enough tears in a Westminster chamber can wash away centuries of moral consensus and jurisprudential restraint.

Death is now defended not by argument but by appeal to emotion. And so, once again, as in the twilight of Rome and the decadence of every fallen age, man exchanges the truth of God for the lie of his own feelings (cf. Rom. 1:25).

Our Failure to Embrace Suffering

At the heart of both these votes—abortion and assisted suicide—lies a deeper spiritual crisis: our culture’s utter inability to make sense of suffering. In casting off the Cross, we have lost not only our theology of sacrifice but also our capacity for endurance, for compassion rightly ordered, and for hope that transcends pain.

We do not suffer well because we do not know why we suffer.

Modern man, having severed suffering from redemption, now seeks only to eliminate it—no matter the cost. But where suffering cannot be eliminated, the sufferer is. What cannot be fixed is discarded. What cannot be explained is hidden. And so the unwanted child and the despairing patient are treated not as persons to be loved, but as problems to be solved—by termination.

This is not love. It is spiritual cowardice.

Our ancestors knew suffering as a school of virtue, a mystery to be united to the Cross, and a means of purifying the soul. The saints called it a blessing. The martyrs bore it as witness. Christ Himself sanctified it, not by erasing it, but by embracing it. “Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8).

But in a society that worships control, comfort, and autonomy, suffering is seen only as an indignity—a failure of systems, a defect of life. And so we flee from it. We medicate it, mask it, and ultimately legislate it out of existence. What remains is a culture too fragile to face sorrow and too sterile to bring forth joy.

Until we recover the truth that suffering can be redemptive, we will continue to kill those whom suffering touches most. A nation that cannot suffer cannot love.

What Remains of Human Rights?

The very notion of universal human rights is grounded in the premise that life has intrinsic value—value not conferred by health, autonomy, or utility, but by the simple fact of our shared humanity. When society begins to assign worth based on perceived quality of life, it begins to dismantle the foundation of justice itself.

The early Fathers knew this. St. Gregory of Nyssa insisted that “the murder of a man is the greatest of crimes, for he bears in himself the image of God.”⁵ Tertullian, facing a pagan culture that practiced infanticide and abortion, declared: “He who will one day be a man is already one.”⁶

Our modern culture has reversed this. Those most obviously human—the child whose heartbeat can be heard, the patient whose voice has grown weak—are redefined as burdens, liabilities, problems to be managed. Their deaths are facilitated not in secrecy, but under the protection of law.

The Apathy of Apostasy

There is a silence more dangerous than outright heresy—a silence that clothes itself in reasonableness, civility, and theological ambiguity. It is the silence of apostasy, not declared but lived: the practical abandonment of the Gospel in order to preserve comfort, reputation, or relevance. This is the silence that now dominates much of Christianity in Britain.

While Parliament was debating whether to permit the killing of the unborn up to the point of birth, and the deliberate facilitation of suicide in the name of compassion, where were the voices of Christian leaders? Where was the Church’s sacred duty to “preach the word… in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2)? A handful spoke, and fewer still protested. Most remained hidden—paralysed by past failures, afraid of media backlash, or cowed by secular expectations of religious “neutrality.” This is not humility. It is abdication.

Secularisation has not simply removed the Church from public favour; it has exposed the frailty of our witness. The rise of a cold and calculating rationalism has persuaded many Christians that moral conviction must be shelved in favour of dialogical tone, or that faith is a private matter unsuited to the public square. But the apostles did not die to preserve pluralism. They preached a Gospel that was offensive, demanding, and utterly incompatible with the paganism of their day.

And now, as our nation slides deeper into a culture of sanctioned death, many who bear the name of Christ do so without the Cross. They want credibility without martyrdom, influence without confrontation. But the blood of the martyrs was not spilled so that bishops might take refuge in parliamentary neutrality, nor so that clergy might shrink from the controversy of truth.

The great failure of contemporary Christianity in the United Kingdom is not a lack of access to media, nor a shortage of theological resources. It is a failure of nerve. The fear of controversy has eclipsed the fear of God. And so we are left with polite press releases, sterile ecumenical handwringing, and a witness that says nothing precisely when it must cry out.

This is not the apostolic Church. It is the lukewarm Church which our Lord warns He will “vomit out” (Apoc. 3:16).

Now is the time for repentance—for a return to the boldness of the martyrs, the fidelity of the confessors, and the uncompromising proclamation of Christ’s Lordship over life and death. For if we will not defend the innocent, then we are no longer worthy to bear His Name.Subscribed

The Failure of the Secular Experiment

But as much as this moment reveals the failure of the Church to bear prophetic witness, it is just as damning a verdict on the secular experiment itself. For decades, the architects of modern Britain have promised that a society freed from religion would become more enlightened, more humane, and more just. What we see instead is a civilisation that has grown cold, frightened, and profoundly discompassionate.

The self-proclaimed humanists, atheists, and rationalists who led the charge for a post-Christian public square have not replaced the Gospel with moral clarity or courage. On the contrary, they have presided over a descent into utilitarianism, euphemism, and legalised abandonment. They have reduced compassion to consent, and justice to bureaucratic compliance.

It is no coincidence that in a culture which no longer fears God, death is increasingly offered as a solution. For when man exiles his Creator, he inevitably redefines himself—not as a being made for eternity, but as a biological organism to be optimised, managed, or extinguished. As Dostoevsky warned: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” But what secularists rarely consider is that when everything is permitted, compassion is no longer required.

Atheism promised emancipation; it has delivered moral paralysis. Secular humanism claimed to cherish dignity; it now permits the killing of the voiceless and the despairing. In the absence of God, man has become not sovereign but expendable. And those who once claimed the moral high ground now cower behind procedural justifications and speak in the sterile idiom of “personal choice.”

There is no moral courage in this. No prophetic vision. No love. Only silence, legality, and the efficient management of despair.

We were told that man could be good without God. But now, with God formally excluded from our laws and institutions, we are left with a society that has no coherent answer to evil, no consolation in suffering, and no defence of the innocent.

What Can the Righteous Do?

The Psalmist cries out: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3). It is a cry many faithful hearts now echo. But the answer is not despair. The Church must speak even more clearly, live even more sacrificially, and love even more fiercely. For in the words of St. John Chrysostom: “The greater the darkness, the more the light is seen.”⁷

We must become the sanctuary our society no longer offers. If Parliament will no longer defend life, then families, parishes, and faithful communities must become places where every life—weak or strong, born or unborn, joyful or suffering—is received as a gift from God.

To those now tempted to despair, I say this: do not give up. Do not retreat into bitterness or silence. Let this moment sharpen our vision and renew our mission. For we are not called to be conformed to this world, but to bear witness to a Kingdom in which death is defeated and life is sacred.

In this dark hour, we are called not to abandon the battlefield, but to remain—faithful, prayerful, unyielding. For the Judge of all the earth shall do right (Gen. 18:25), and the blood of the innocent cries out still.

And it is time—long past time—for orthodox Christians, like other religionists, to speak boldly once more into the public discourse. We are not second-class citizens. We enjoy the same civil rights and legal protections afforded to every protected characteristic: the right to speak, to believe, to worship, to live and share our culture without coercion or silence. The Christian vision of life does not demand the destruction of others—it seeks the common good and the supreme good of all.

Footnotes

¹ Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 93–95.
² Pius XII, Address to Italian Catholic Doctors, AAS 32 (1940), pp. 465–468.
³ Pius XII, Address to the International Congress on Psychotherapy, 13 April 1953.
⁴ David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1751, Section I.
⁵ Gregory of Nyssa, De Hominis Opificio, ch. 5.
⁶ Tertullian, Apologeticus, ch. 9.
⁷ John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, Homily 23.

Originally published on Selsey Substack