Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

[labtest57]

This is from their Facebook page today. No consideration for the women who do not want men in their spaces.

And if you knew anything about what a place of worship of God is you would know its a house of trust not suspicion

That's almost the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Clergy are not above suspicion and safeguarding applies to all especially after the evidence of abuse by members of every church.

I suppose the priest that assaulted me did it in my own house rather than his church though. Still wouldn't want him standing outside the loo though.

I did something less useful and checked their twitter. Hasn’t been used for a while - looks like they came off after the Southport riots. But I find this image …..ironic.

Hello, Bridget!!

‘There is no male or female you are all one’,
is the equivalent of ‘neither free nor slave’ ( which does not mean slaves did not exist).

Do you understand how few rights women had then, practically like cows or sheep? This phrase means to criticise that and say that, to God, women are equal to men in their importance, and in their being deserving of God’s love.

It does not mean that on earth there is no difference between males and females.

@WarriorN I did something useful, too, and looked up your mentioned Inclusive Church Network.

https://www.inclusive-church.org/about-us/partners/

Just so people know, all the Catholic stuff listed is actually Anglican.

I'm going to bring this up with my dad when I speak to him in a couple of days, he was the lay member of the Synod for our city when they voted for woman vicars. He will be absolutely appalled by this.

Affirming Catholicism and The Society of Catholic Priests are Anglican. But Quest appears to be Catholic https://questlgbti.uk/

Others on that list are now defunct, including the Ozanne Foundation.

oh fab. A nice long list of orgs to check out!

They're not on bsky but on the other hand, they have been in the news before, and related to this issues: https://bsky.app/profile/hleehurley.com/post/3libuhpq62a2g

Well, Lee obviously did not read the article s/he posted, or chooses to ignore the Church's point about the altar already being inclusive. And spectacularly ignores the fact that the "Progress Flag" means exclusion for a lot of people.

If a church says, “All are welcome, including gay, lesbian, transsexual, and divorced people” that is right and what you would expect of a good church. They are not to feel excluded or unwelcome.

What is wrong is to mess around saying transwomen are women, they are not. Or to say they are free to go into women’s spaces, they are not.

I am surprised this church has Men’s and Ladies’. It must be quite big.

I have not rtft, what is the name of this church please?

I’ve met Cannon Clare professionally numerous times and usually have a lot of time for her. She’s a huge advocate of interfaith, working with the local Muslim, Jewish, Sikh etc leaders and a supporter of Pride but she / the minster is very wrong about this. As with many congregations up and down the country, it’s made up primarily of older people so I’d be surprised if they were all on board.

Sunderland Minster is the one we've been discussing.

So it seems.

The church is Sunderland Minster. Inclusive Church promotes the full LGTBQI+ agenda, and thereby excludes many.

She might be the be kindest person around.

However in breaking the law she’s not fulfilling her duties.

Ime there is a sizeable number of women in the CofE who have become priests in middle age, who are noticeably deferential and seemingly emotionally engaged with and grateful to the male clergy around (and particularly above) them.

is this the person behind the post?

or perhaps an over zealous social media person

https://durhamdiocese.org/diocesan-news/the-revd-canon-clare-maclaren-new-provost-of-sunderland-minster.php

I note she came from Newcastle

True, he's found a few less than helpful with his battles with bishops over the years. Still, even in his retirement years, he likes to stir the pot every now and then....

How is a man 'protected' by legally forcing women to undress with men who believe they are women in order to stroke their inner selves, or lose all access to public life? How exactly?

These people are mad.

This could be a pr nightmare for the church.

The church are trying VERY hard to sort out safeguarding, particularly led by the bishop of Newcastle IIRC. I’m sure I’ve heard her on radio 4 a few times talking about recent issues and lack of accountability by the church following the Makin Review

Stroking their outer selves is a problem too...

Yes, I too don't get why putting women's physical safety and dignity at risk is considered worth it to 'protect' other's fragile mental health.

Bishop accuses Archbishops of 'coercive language' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0je7mg8ygo

Yes, she was one of the first and loudest to call for Welby's resignation.

As you know, they need to. Their history on this, including the John Smyth (ghastly man - plus all his enablers and protectors in the CofE) debacle is horrific.

Concentrating on the safeguarding aspect and vocabulary might be one way to make situations like the Minster actually get through to them.