Trans ruling may be used as ‘cover for transphobic abuse', claims CofE diocese
The Supreme Court's trans ruling could be used as a 'cover from transphobic abuse', a Church of England diocese has claimed.
The Diocese of Salisbury said the judgment that transgender women are not legally women had caused 'struggling and suffering'.
In a statement issued on behalf of its LGBTQIA+ chaplaincy service, the diocese asked clergy and worshippers to pray for trans priests and parishioners 'affected by this judgment'.
It is the first public statement made by any of the Church's 42 dioceses on the ruling earlier this month.
'Emotional pain'
The judgment has been hailed as a 'landmark' ruling for women's rights by gender-critical campaigners.
But the statement issued by the Diocese of Salisbury said it had caused 'emotional pain'.
'The Chaplaincy team are concerned that the recent Supreme Court ruling may cause pain to many people, and may even be used as a cover for transphobic abuse,' it read.
The statement added that Anglicans should be 'careful in the use of words' in the wake of the judgment.
'We ask that, whatever our various views on the matter, we bear in mind that many people are struggling and suffering because of the emotional pain caused by this judgement,' it read.
'Can we please be careful in the use of words, and can we please pray for the many lay and ordained members of our diocese who have been affected by this judgment.'
The diocese went on to say that the chaplaincy team endorsed a statement issued by Together for the Church of England, a pro-LGBT pressure group which supports the introduction of same-sex marriage in the church.
'We want to make absolutely clear our belief that trans people are beloved, held, and rejoiced over by the God who loved each and every one of us into being, and for our trans siblings to know that we stand in solidarity alongside you,' Together's statement reads.
'We will not stay silent as you face the way ahead, and we commit ourselves to listening to and amplifying your voices.
'You are holy and adored by God. We will not stand by when anyone tries to diminish or deny the dignity of God's beloved children and our treasured siblings.'
The diocese's LGBT chaplaincy provides 'pastoral support and advocacy for LGBTQIA+ people'.
The Church of England has previously been criticised for issuing guidance telling primary schools that children as young as five can be transgender.
The Valuing All God's Children report said primary school-aged children can change their gender identity and advised schools on how to create 'inclusive' environments for trans pupils.
In 2022, the Rt Rev Robert Innes, the Bishop in Europe, provoked a backlash when he said there is 'no official definition' of a woman.
Individual churches have also previously draped altars with the pro-transgender Progress Pride flag in apparent violations of canon law.
These include Sunderland Minster, in County Durham, and St Nicholas in Leicester.
Last December, it emerged that an Anglican campaign group – LGBTQ Faith UK – had promoted guidance saying the Bible was pro-transgender.
The Church of England was approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Energy consumption and temperatures rising quickly
I remain half-convinced that certain wits at the Argus make up his letters as a clever satire on the typical Daily Mail reader. Viz magazine runs a regular column with the same worthy aim, but your version is funnier. The climate crisis is dire. Energy consumption - and temperatures - are rising at a far greater rate than emissions cuts and a recent UN report predicts that global fossil fuel production in 2030 is set to be more than double the level deemed consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Renewable energy sources aren't profitable enough for capitalist corporations to spend on them in the amounts required to make a serious difference. Money speaks loudest in our world, and so Spaceship Earth remains on an uncertain trajectory. The world's dependence on fossil fuels is increasing, despite many governments' commitments to decarbonise. However, even where small efforts ARE being made - wind and solar farms, etc. - buffoons like Greenhalgh are ready to condemn them for spoiling the view from the ramparts of their cosy little castles! Clearly, this man Greenhalgh is no intellectual, but surely to God he can do better than this! Does he not embarrass himself? The hot air he generates is only making matters worse. Lyndon Morgans, Blackwood.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
MAGA turns on Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett and give her brutal label as she threatens to upend SCOTUS
A new analysis appears to confirm conservative fears that Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has often swung to the left in her rulings. Many allies of the president have even referred to the justice - who has seven children, including two adopted from Haiti - as a 'DEI hire' and there are reports Trump himself has complained about Barrett's rulings. The associate justice was chosen by Trump and rushed through confirmation by Senate Republicans in 2020 ahead of the November presidential election. But since her appointment to replace liberal hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barrett has joined her liberal colleagues on several occasions for rulings that have hampered Trump and his second term agenda. GOP outcry toward Barrett includes her judging against the blocking of foreign aid and against delaying Trump's sentenced on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records just days before his inauguration. That has led the liberal New York Times to call Barrett: 'One of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.' A new study of Barrett's first half-decade on the court prepared for the paper finds those worries may not be out of tune with her record from the bench. Several law professors determined that Barrett doesn't come close to conservative icon Antonin Scalia and 'is showing signs of leftward drift' as she plays 'an increasingly central role on the court. They cite her agreeing with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, specifically, 82 percent of the time during her second term, up from 39 percent in her first. Her central role includes writing her rulings separately from the other justices more frequently. Not only has she aligned 'more frequently with liberal majorities,' she is the Republican 'least likely to support Trump' in cases that involve the president himself. She has voted with liberal majorities 91 percent of the time while voting with conservative majorities just 84 percent of the time, though given the 6-3 conservative bend of the court, there are more conservative than liberal victories. Mike Davis, a Trump ally and conservative legal activist, is greatly disappointed in Barrett. 'We had too much hope for her. She doesn't have enough courage,' said Davis, who was criticized by phone earlier this year by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch for Davis' comments about Barrett on Steve Bannon's podcast. Davis called Barrett 'scared of her own shadow.' 'She is a rattled law professor with her head up her a**,' Davis, a former clerk to Gorsuch, told Bannon. Several law professors determined that Barrett doesn't come close to conservative icon Antonin Scalia and 'is showing signs of leftward drift' as she plays 'an increasingly central role on the court He also blasted her as 'weak and timid' to NBC News. Right-wing influencer Eric Daugherty attacked the justice in a series of tweets as an 'anti-Trump judge' and a 'big problem.' 'Barrett deceived people into thinking she was a reliable constitutionalist. The power has gone to her head. It happens with frightening regularity the last half century,' posted conservative radio host Mark Levin. Megyn Kelly went off on her on her podcast as 'a little squishy.' 'As a female who leans right, I'm kind of sick of like, the female conservatives who get appointed to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, now Amy Coney Barrett, like being too squishy,' she ranted. 'Get somebody with some rhetorical balls who will hold as fiercely to conservative principles in the judiciary as the left wing does,' she added. However, Noah Feldman, a friend of Barrett's and a Harvard law professor, claim the hype of Barrett's left leanings are overstated by both sides. 'It's a mistake by ignorant conservatives and wishful liberals to believe she's moderating,' Feldman said. 'She's exactly the person I met 25 years ago: principled, absolutely conservative, not interested in shifting.' In January, Barrett was among the same five-justice majority that ruled against Trump's request to halt him being sentenced on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records just days before his inauguration. But Barrett has also been a swing vote siding with conservatives as well. She was in the majority which overturned Roe v Wade in 2023. She was also in the 6-3 conservative majority last June that ruled presidents have some immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office. Trump nominated Barrett to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court after she passed away in September 2020. In announcing her nomination, Trump said Barrett was going to be 'fantastic.' 'No matter the issue, no matter the case before her, I am supremely confident that Judge Barrett will issue rulings based solely upon a fair reading of the law,' the president said at the time. Despite refusing to confirm an Obama Supreme Court nominee ahead of the 2016 election, Senate Republicans in the majority ramped through Barrett's confirmation. The move solidified a conservative supermajority on the country's highest court just weeks before Joe Biden won the election and Democrats flipped the Senate.
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court orders reconsideration of religious objection to N.Y. abortion care requirement
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to take a second look at a religious challenge to a New York state requirement that employers provide health care plans that include abortion coverage. The justices said the case should be reviewed again in light of their ruling ear l ier this month that Wisconsin had unlawfully denied charitable groups associated with the Catholic Church a state tax exemption. In a separate action Monday, the court also took up a case from New Jersey arising from the state's investigation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that provide guidance to pregnant women. The technical issue is whether the state can enforce subpoenas against First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc., which runs five centers, seeking information about donors. First Choice says the subpoena violates its free speech rights and freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment. The New York case revolves around a regulation issued by New York in 2017 that requires employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion coverage in certain situations, including in cases of rape and incest. It includes a religious exemption that applies to institutions but does not extend to religious-affiliated groups that serve the general public, such as those that provide food to low-income people. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other organizations sued, saying the exemption is so narrow it violates the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. In addition to Catholic entities, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Baptist groups are also among the challengers. Lawyers for the religious groups say that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as no exemption at all. They argue that the justices should overturn the 1990 precedent, a case called Employment Division v. Smith. The New York case has been litigated for years and already reached the Supreme Court once. Then, the justices ordered the state court to revisit an earlier ruling against the diocese. That followed a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question in which the justices ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia that was barred from participating in the city's foster care program because of its opposition to same-sex relationships. In another case with some overlap, the Supreme Court in 2020 endorsed a broad religious exemption to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control. In a May 2024 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals again ruled for the state, saying that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the free exercise clause. The state's lawyers argued in court papers that the religious exemption 'provides a denominationally neutral accommodation' based on objective criteria. As such, the measure — since codified into law by the state Legislature — is a 'generally applicable' law under the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent, they wrote.
