Ideology Before Duty: Brighton & Hove Council’s Crisis of Safeguarding and Governance
Correspondence with the Council’s Chief Executive and two exchanges at Full Council reveal an authority repeatedly asked what it has learned, what it has changed and how it will comply with new statutory standards. Instead of answering those questions directly, Brighton & Hove City Council has relied upon institutional boundaries, declarations of confidence and political resistance to settled law. That approach is especially dangerous where the Council’s decisions affect children, families and vulnerable residents.
During July, Brighton & Hove City Council was given three distinct opportunities to demonstrate the habits expected of a serious public authority.
More than one hundred residents asked Chief Executive Jess Gibbons what lessons the Council had learned following the NHS investigation into WellBN. Several parents then offered to explain their experiences to her privately and face to face. At Full Council, the authority was asked what had changed in its treatment of safeguarding concerns involving autistic and otherwise vulnerable children. In a separate exchange, councillors were asked how the Council would implement an Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice due to come into force within days.
The subjects were different, but the institutional response was remarkably consistent.
The Council did not run WellBN. The Cass Review concerned healthcare rather than education. Existing safeguarding procedures were said to inspire confidence. The new statutory Code was described as “flawed and confusing”. Brighton & Hove would remain “trans-inclusive”. Officers were working on the matter, and a clearer answer might be possible in a few months.
What the public did not hear was what had been reviewed, which procedures had changed, whether earlier complaints had been reconsidered, which guidance was being withdrawn or amended, who was accountable for implementation, or how the Council would ensure lawful compliance across its services.
The objection is not that councillors hold political opinions. They are entitled to campaign for legislative change, to criticise government policy and to express compassion towards residents who feel distressed. The difficulty begins when political allegiance determines which evidence is considered relevant, which legal duties are treated as negotiable and which questions are answered at all.
For an authority responsible for education, children’s services, social care, safeguarding and services used by vulnerable people, this is more than a matter of rhetoric. It is a governance risk.
The question put to the Chief Executive
On 1 July 2026, more than one hundred Brighton & Hove residents wrote to Jess Gibbons after publication of the NHS investigation into WellBN’s treatment of children and young people experiencing gender-related distress.
The investigation had identified serious concerns involving prescribing practices, clinical oversight, consent, record-keeping and governance. The residents did not claim that Brighton & Hove City Council had operated the practice, issued prescriptions or made the clinical decisions under examination.
Their purpose was expressly stated: “The purpose of this letter is not to revisit the clinical findings themselves. Rather, it is to ask what lessons Brighton & Hove City Council intends to draw from them.”¹
That distinction matters. The signatories were not demanding a confession of liability. They were asking whether findings made elsewhere, taken together with concerns repeatedly raised with the Council, merited reflection upon its own policies and conduct.
Those earlier concerns included social transition in schools, parental involvement, the treatment of autistic and otherwise vulnerable children, the influence of external organisations, Council-supported guidance and the pathways by which some young people moved from educational or pastoral settings towards gender-related medical services.
The letter asked six questions. Had parents’ concerns received appropriate scrutiny? Would the Council review its handling of social transition, parental involvement and safeguarding practice? Would it examine Council-supported guidance and organisations working with schools? How would professional curiosity be encouraged? How would parents be assured that safeguarding concerns would be considered fairly rather than dismissed because they challenged an established position?
Jess Gibbons replied on 6 July. She accurately explained that the NHS investigation had examined WellBN rather than Council services and that responsibility for responding to its clinical recommendations rested with NHS Sussex and the relevant healthcare providers.
She wrote that “the investigation does not establish any connection between the matters identified and Council-run services”.²
That was a correct description of what the NHS investigation did not establish. It was not an answer to what the residents had asked.
The absence of findings against the Council does not demonstrate that there are no lessons for the Council. It demonstrates that the investigation was not commissioned to examine the Council. Nor does the absence of a proven connection make inquiry improper. It means that no connection should be presumed without evidence.
A well-governed authority would distinguish between admitting fault and examining whether fault, missed warning signs or common assumptions might exist. Brighton & Hove instead treated the boundaries of another organisation’s investigation as if they settled the limits of its own responsibility to reflect.
Parents offered evidence, not confrontation
PSHEbrighton wrote again on 16 July, inviting the Chief Executive to meet confidentially with a small number of affected parents.
The invitation was deliberately measured. Jess Gibbons was not asked to accept every account uncritically. She was asked to hear directly from families reporting recurring themes involving autism and other vulnerabilities, social transition at school, communication with parents, referrals to external organisations and eventual contact with NHS gender services.
The letter stated that, if she remained satisfied after hearing those accounts that the Council’s safeguarding arrangements required no further reflection, “that would at least be a conclusion reached after listening to those most directly affected”.³
The Chief Executive replied that she would consider the invitation seriously but asked the parents first to email the details of their safeguarding concerns so that appropriate action could be taken through the Council’s safeguarding practice.
That request overlooked the reason a private meeting had been proposed.
Some of the matters remain legally sensitive, and complaints or related proceedings may still be active. No defined process was supplied explaining who would receive the accounts, how they would be recorded, whether they could be disclosed to schools or partner organisations, what safeguarding threshold would be applied or what effect the material might have upon ongoing cases.
Several families had already produced substantial written complaints and correspondence. Their concern was that the cumulative significance of their experiences had been lost when each incident was separated into a different complaint, procedure or institutional reply.
The request for a meeting was therefore not an attempt to evade safeguarding procedures. It was an attempt to explain why those procedures may have failed to disclose the whole picture.
Where families contend that a system did not hear them, returning them immediately to that system without first understanding the criticism risks repeating the failure complained of.
The SEND question and the narrowing of Cass
The same habit appeared at Full Council.
Kate Sawyer asked how the lessons arising from the failures of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service had informed the Council’s SEND Reform Plan, including workforce training and its “Experts at Hand” model.
SEND means Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. It concerns children and young people who need additional educational provision because a disability, learning difficulty or neurodevelopmental condition affects their access to education. Autism falls within this framework, although autistic children differ considerably in their presentation and needs.
Councillor Emma Daniel acknowledged that the Cass Review had considered autistic young people in the context of gender services, but sought to contain its relevance. “The Cass Review,” she said, “was a review of specific health services and health interventions designed around trans and non-binary children.” It was therefore, in her view, not directly relevant to SEND provision in education more broadly.
Her answer included several worthwhile observations. She referred to the historic under-recognition of autism in girls, the importance of specialist teachers and the need for schools to take a holistic approach. She also referred to her own experience as the parent of an autistic daughter.
Yet those observations made the original question more pertinent, not less.
Cass was commissioned to review gender-identity services, but its findings were not confined to the internal administration of a clinic. They concerned the complexity of the children referred, the prevalence of neurodevelopmental and mental-health difficulties, the weakness of the evidence base and the danger that one interpretation of distress might eclipse a child’s wider needs.⁴
Those lessons do not cease to matter because a child is in a classroom rather than a consulting room.
Schools do not prescribe medication. They may nevertheless introduce the language through which a child interprets distress, facilitate social transition, alter names and pronouns, decide whether parents are informed and recommend outside organisations. A Council whose SEND strategy promises earlier identification, expert support and partnership with families cannot plausibly say that lessons about the misinterpretation of autistic distress belong exclusively to healthcare.
A holistic approach must consider the child’s whole experience. It cannot affirm one account of that child’s difficulty while excluding the evidence which might complicate it.
The question of what changed
Kate Sawyer’s supplementary question removed the jurisdictional escape route. She asked what had changed within the Council to ensure that, when parents raised safeguarding concerns about vulnerable children, those concerns would be treated with professional curiosity as potential evidence requiring exploration rather than dismissed before being properly examined.
Councillor Daniel replied that the Council had not run WellBN and that she did not see the service as relevant to the SEND Reform Plan. She then expressed confidence in the Council’s safeguarding governance, complaints procedures and their external validation.
The question concerned change. The answer concerned confidence.
No amended procedure was identified. No additional training was named. No audit of earlier cases was mentioned. No change in parental engagement was described. The supposed external validation was not identified or explained.
Was it an Ofsted inspection, a peer review, an audit of the safeguarding partnership or an assessment of the complaints process? Did it examine the particular handling of safeguarding concerns involving gender-questioning children, or merely confirm that general procedures existed?
The existence of a complaints process does not establish that complaints were understood correctly. A general inspection cannot answer questions it did not examine. If external validation is to be relied upon as proof that no further reflection is required, the public is entitled to know what was validated and against which standard.
The response also illustrated the very problem raised in the question. Professional curiosity requires a willingness to test convenient assumptions, seek corroborating information and explore whether apparently separate experiences reveal a pattern. It does not assume that the Council caused WellBN’s failures, but neither does it treat institutional separation as a reason to avoid inquiry.
By beginning with the conclusion that WellBN was irrelevant because the Council did not operate it, the authority foreclosed the examination before it had begun.
The Council’s own policy record
This would be less concerning had Brighton & Hove remained neutral in the disputes surrounding children, sex and gender. It did not.
The Council developed and promoted a Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit. Version 5 was approved by Cabinet in January 2025 and recommended for use by education settings across the city. The document addresses social transition, names and pronouns, confidentiality, school records, toilets, changing rooms, sport, residential trips, staff training, curriculum content and external support organisations.⁵
The toolkit contains qualifications. It acknowledges that it does not supersede statute or statutory guidance and that changes in law, research and practice may require revision. Those qualifications now have practical consequences. A document expressly subordinate to statutory guidance must be reviewed when that guidance changes.
Its underlying framework is nevertheless apparent. It treats “gender identity” as distinct from sex, describes children through categories including “trans” and “non-binary”, and encourages transgender representation across school life. That goes beyond the uncontroversial requirement to protect children from bullying and treat all pupils with courtesy. It incorporates a disputed account of sex and identity into policy.
The Council’s PSHE, including RSHE Curriculum Map for Brighton & Hove Primary Schools 2026 confirms that its influence is not confined to a single toolkit.
The programme begins in Reception, provides for approximately one PSHE lesson each week and directs schools towards resources produced by the Brighton & Hove PSHE Team. It includes “Gender Equality Education” and “Family Diversity” in Reception. Year 1 introduces the idea that there are “many ways to be a boy or a girl”, with related language returning in later years. Year 6 includes “LGBT+ equality education”, while protective-behaviours teaching links respect for another person’s “identity” with feeling safe.⁶
Teaching children that boys and girls need not conform to narrow stereotypes is legitimate. A boy is no less male because he dislikes football; a girl is no less female because she prefers engineering to ballet. The proper answer to restrictive stereotypes is to enlarge the possibilities of boyhood and girlhood, not to invite children to interpret nonconformity as evidence of another identity.
The curriculum map alone cannot establish whether that boundary is crossed. It lists themes and outcomes, not the lesson plans, slides, films, teacher scripts, classroom books, websites and external resources through which the ideas are taught.
That is why the legacy Year 6 materials previously produced under Brighton & Hove’s educational auspices remain relevant. The older pack has not been confirmed for use from September 2026 and should not be represented as the current curriculum. It nevertheless included the language of “all genders” and “cisgender”, treated gender identity as a teaching theme and stated that some people do not feel like boys or girls. It also contained or recommended material concerning masturbation, sexual pleasure, pornography, contraception and expressly LGBT-inclusive resources.⁷
The uncertainty over its present use strengthens the argument for an audit. Older resources remain on shared drives, curriculum platforms, in staff folders and in classroom collections long after a new policy has been published. Amending a policy does not establish that the material presented to pupils has changed.
Brighton & Hove was therefore not a detached observer of a conceptual approach operating elsewhere. It helped to shape the local educational environment in which children, families and professionals were encouraged to interpret sex, identity and distress.
When statutory guidance becomes politically inconvenient
The second Full Council exchange exposed the same conflict more openly.
Councillor Raphael Hill asked how the Council would respond to the EHRC’s updated Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. He suggested that the Code appeared to conflict with the Public Sector Equality Duty and other equality legislation and was therefore unworkable.
The legal position was considerably clearer than that question implied.
The Supreme Court had already held unanimously in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers that “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. It also confirmed that transgender people remain protected by the separate characteristic of gender reassignment.⁸
The updated EHRC Code did not compete with the Equality Act or replace the Public Sector Equality Duty. It was produced under the statutory framework established to explain the application of the Act. The commencement order had been made on 14 July, and the Code was due to come into force on 5 August, replacing the previous Code.⁹
Councillor Mitchie Alexander nevertheless stated that “we” considered the guidance “flawed and confusing” and would continue pressing the Government to legislate in order to protect the dignity of transgender people.
The word “we” was left undefined. Did it mean the Council corporately, the political administration, a party group, the TNBI Roundtable or the councillor herself? Which provisions were said to be flawed? What legal advice supported that conclusion? Had the Monitoring Officer advised that a statutory Code reflecting a unanimous Supreme Court judgment conflicted with the Act under which it had been issued?
None of this was explained.
Councillors may argue that Parliament should alter the law. They may object to the judgment’s consequences and campaign against the Code. Council officers and the corporate authority must meanwhile administer the law which exists.
Political disagreement does not, of itself, create legal uncertainty. A statutory Code does not become unworkable because those responsible for implementing it dislike the position it explains.
Compassion without legal clarity
Councillor Hill’s supplementary question was personal and plainly distressed. He asked what could be said to transgender people who felt that the Government treated them “as a disease” and as “sexual predators simply for existing”.
Councillor Alexander replied that she did not know how to answer except to say that she was sorry. She acknowledged the pain being felt, repeated that the authority would remain trans-inclusive and said that a Council team was working towards a solution. She hoped to offer a clearer answer within a few months.
Her sympathy was no doubt sincere. The description of the law was nevertheless inaccurate and should not have been left uncorrected.
Neither the Supreme Court judgment nor the EHRC Code describes transgender people as diseased or predatory. The Code retains protection against gender-reassignment discrimination. It also explains the lawful operation of separate and single-sex services where privacy, dignity, trauma, intimate care or safety make such provision proportionate.¹⁰
A female refuge or changing room does not exist because every male person is presumed dangerous. Sex-based provision may protect privacy or meet particular therapeutic and safeguarding needs without making an accusation against every person excluded from it.
A responsible answer could have acknowledged Councillor Hill’s distress while explaining the law accurately. Doing so would not have lacked compassion. It would have prevented fear from being reinforced by an account of the Code which the Code itself does not support.
Equality requires more than one constituency
Councillor Alexander also referred to regular engagement with transgender, non-binary and intersex representatives through the Council’s TNBI Roundtable. Such engagement is legitimate and necessary. The authority should understand how transgender residents and employees experience its policies and whether they face harassment, humiliation or unlawful discrimination.
That consultation cannot be the whole equality exercise.
Women and girls were absent from the answer. So were survivors of sexual violence, disabled women receiving intimate care, users of refuges and communal facilities, residents whose religions require bodily privacy, and employees holding protected gender-critical beliefs.
The Public Sector Equality Duty requires due regard across protected characteristics. It does not permit an authority to consult one constituency about how to mitigate the lawful recognition of another constituency’s interests and treat that as an impartial assessment.¹¹
The language of mitigation is particularly revealing. If the recognition of biological sex, or the continued existence of a lawful single-sex service, is defined from the outset as a harm to be reduced, the Council has already determined how competing rights are to be weighed.
That concern becomes more serious when political representatives have publicly declared the statutory standard defective before the implementation process has been explained.
The practical meaning of inclusion
Brighton & Hove repeatedly describes itself as a trans-inclusive Council. Properly understood, that commitment can be both lawful and humane. It may mean protecting transgender residents and employees from harassment and unlawful discrimination, treating people courteously and ensuring reasonable access to services.
It cannot mean that gender identity will continue to determine legal sex for every administrative purpose. The Supreme Court has resolved that question.
The Council needed to explain what its commitment would mean after 5 August. How would records distinguish sex and gender reassignment where both were relevant? Which services would remain single-sex? What alternatives would be provided where appropriate? How would staff be trained? How would complaints involving competing rights be handled?
No operational account was given.
The public was told that a team was working on the issue and that a fuller answer might be available in a few months. Yet the Code was due to come into force within days.
The Supreme Court judgment had been delivered in April 2025. The updated Code had been laid before Parliament in May 2026. Its commencement order had already been made. A Council of Brighton & Hove’s size should have been able to identify the policies under review, the officers responsible and the arrangements required on commencement.
Its inability to do so raises a legitimate concern that the obstacle was not unavoidable legal complexity, but political resistance to the legal position being implemented.
The safeguarding risk
The correspondence with Jess Gibbons and the two Full Council exchanges concern different subjects, but they reveal the same governing instinct.
The WellBN findings are treated as irrelevant because the Council did not operate the service. Cass is confined to clinical healthcare because its wider lessons might require educational policies to be reconsidered. Parents asking to be heard are directed back towards procedures whose adequacy they dispute. A statutory Code is called flawed because its recognition of biological sex conflicts with a preferred conception of inclusion.
This is how ideology weakens governance. It narrows the evidence before inquiry begins, uses institutional boundaries to avoid examining relationships and treats confidence in a policy as evidence that the policy is lawful or safe.
The consequences are especially grave where children and vulnerable people are concerned.
A child may be autistic, anxious, traumatised, socially isolated or distressed by puberty. A school or external organisation may interpret those difficulties through the language of gender identity. Parents may raise concerns. Where the prevailing institutional culture has already classified affirmation as inclusion and caution as prejudice, the scope for serious assessment contracts rapidly.
This does not mean that every gender-questioning child has the same explanation or that no accommodation can ever be appropriate. It means that safeguarding requires adults to remain free to consider every plausible explanation, every relevant vulnerability and the possible consequences of intervention.
An institution that has settled the answer ideologically is badly equipped to recognise the child whose needs do not conform to it.
The September test
From 1 September, Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 requires a more cautious and formally governed approach to children questioning their gender. Schools should not initiate social transition. Decisions must be made at school level and documented. Parents should ordinarily be engaged as a priority. Biological sex must be recorded accurately, and earlier decisions must be reconsidered where necessary. The guidance also requires attention to the whole child, including mental health, neurodiversity, family circumstances, bullying and wider vulnerabilities.¹²
The revised statutory RSHE guidance moves in the same direction. Schools should not teach as fact that everyone has a gender identity, should avoid materials encouraging pupils to question their gender and must allow parents meaningful access to the resources used.¹³
Brighton & Hove cannot meet these requirements by changing a date on its toolkit or adjusting the language of a policy.
It must examine the underlying curriculum and practice: lesson plans, films, slides, teacher scripts, reading lists, displays, linked websites, external providers, staff training and existing social-transition arrangements. It must establish which legacy materials remain available and withdraw those which no longer meet the legal and safeguarding standard.
The authority which created and promoted the earlier framework should be leading that work transparently. Instead, its political representatives have given the impression that national standards are to be viewed first as ideological threats and only afterwards as legal duties requiring implementation.
The proper measure of governance
No serious critic expects a public authority never to make a mistake. Good governance is demonstrated by an institution’s capacity to hear criticism, examine evidence and change course where necessary.
Brighton & Hove has so far offered reassurance without showing the work of reflection.
The Chief Executive explained why the NHS investigation did not formally concern the Council, but not what the Council had reviewed. Councillor Daniel expressed confidence in safeguarding arrangements, but did not identify what had changed. Councillor Alexander reaffirmed the authority’s political identity and criticised the new Code, but did not explain how it would be implemented.
Taken together, these responses suggest that the Council’s conception of itself—as progressive, inclusive and safe—may now be obstructing the examination required to establish whether its policies have in fact been lawful, balanced and protective.
Brighton & Hove City Council should publish what it has learned from the concerns raised since 2023; whether the Chief Executive will hear affected families face to face; what the claimed external validation of safeguarding governance consisted of; how the SEND Reform Plan incorporates the lessons of Cass; how the Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit and associated curriculum materials are being reviewed; and how the EHRC Code will be implemented across every relevant protected characteristic.
It should name the senior officers responsible, distinguish political campaigning from corporate legal duty and provide a timetable by which implementation can be judged.
Until then, institutional confidence is not an answer to the concerns being raised. It is one of the reasons those concerns require independent scrutiny.
1. Letter from more than one hundred Brighton & Hove residents to Jess Gibbons, Chief Executive, 1 July 2026; “Parents Ask Council Chief Executive What Lessons Have Been Learned from the WellBN Investigation”, PSHEbrighton.
pshebrighton.org/pshebrighton/parents-bhcc-ceo-letter/
2. Jess Gibbons, reply to Lesley Hammond, 6 July 2026.
3. PSHEbrighton, letter inviting Jess Gibbons to meet affected parents confidentially, 16 July 2026.
4. Dr Hilary Cass, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report, April 2024; “WellBN: The Questions Brighton Was Told Not to Ask”, PSHEbrighton, 12 June 2026.
pshebrighton.org/in-the-news/wellbn-the-questions-brighton-was-told-not-to-ask/
5. Brighton & Hove City Council, Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit, Version 5; Cabinet approval, 23 January 2025; PSHEbrighton, response to Version 5.
pshebrighton.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/BHCC-Trans-Inclusion-Schools-Toolkit-Version-5-PSHE-Brighton-Response-January-2025.pdf
6. Brighton & Hove City Council, PSHE, including RSHE Curriculum Map for Brighton & Hove Primary Schools 2026, pp. 1–9.
7. Notes on the Proposed PSHE and RSE Arrangements: St Andrew’s CE Primary School — Points to Consider as a Governor and as a Parent, July 2026; Brighton & Hove City Council, legacy KS2 Relationship and Sex Education: Lesson Plans — Year 6.
8. UK Supreme Court, For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, judgment and press summary, 16 April 2025.
supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042
9. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026; Equality Act 2010 (Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations) Order 2026, SI 2026/788, made 14 July 2026 and commencing on 5 August 2026.
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/788
10. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3; EHRC, Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations 2026, provisions concerning separate and single-sex services and protection against gender-reassignment discrimination.
11. Equality Act 2010, section 149, Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. Department for Education, Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026; “Safeguarding First: Why We Are Writing to Schools About KCSIE 2026”, PSHEbrighton.
pshebrighton.org/pshebrighton/safeguarding-first-why-we-are-writing-to-schools-about-kcsie-2026/
13. Department for Education, Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education: Statutory Guidance for Introduction on 1 September 2026.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- 26.07.26 Nuntiatoria CXVI: Ad finem suum restituendaThis editorial discusses the importance of restoring the fundamental purposes of various institutions, particularly within the Church, which exist to worship God and serve souls. It critiques current practices that prioritise legal or administrative efficiency over their original spiritual missions, highlighting examples from diocesan governance, monastic life, and civil law.
- Christ Weeps over the Holy City: The Ninth Sunday after PentecostThe Ninth Sunday after Pentecost reflects on Christ’s lament over Jerusalem, highlighting Israel’s privileges and failures. This Mass urges recognition of divine mercy and the dangers of spiritual presumption, calling for repentance and fidelity amidst the blessings of grace. It culminates in Christ’s invitation to a deeper union through the Eucharist.
- The Priest, the Mission Field and the Mass: A Reply to Kevin WellsKevin Wells appeals to an SSPX priest to leave the Society for the post-conciliar Church, urging him to take traditional priesthood to a spiritually deprived parish. However, this proposition overlooks the critical connection between canonical freedom and preserving Catholic tradition, deeming it risky for the priest’s ministry and pastoral effectiveness.
- New York’s Assisted-Suicide Law Reaches the Bedsides of the DyingFour religious communities and Catholic healthcare institutions are challenging New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act, asserting that its conscience clause inadequately protects their ministries. The law, allowing physician-assisted suicide, requires healthcare facilities to facilitate requests, conflicting with Catholic teachings on life and care, prompting calls for legal restraint on its enforcement.
- Vatican II and the Doctrinal Question of ContinuityThe Second Vatican Council’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, and the Church’s relationship with modernity raise significant doctrinal continuity questions. The Council’s declaration, Dignitatis Humanae, asserts a right to religious freedom but must align with traditional Catholic doctrine, maintaining the Church’s authority and mission while addressing contemporary issues without compromising core beliefs.
CURRENT EDITION
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: July 24 St St Lewinna V&M
St Lewinna, Virgin and Martyr, is commemorated alongside St James the Great’s Vigil. Considered a martyr of early South Saxon Christians, her death is likely around AD 670 amid pagan resistance. Her relics were later moved to St Andrew’s Church, with Alfriston being a possible location, highlighting her enduring legacy in Christian history.
Leave a Reply