Sarah Mullally installed as first female Archbishop of Canterbury > Now is a schism developing with the African Church?

 

Sarah Mullally installed as first female Archbishop of Canterbury > A schism with the African church?

 

Sarah Mullally becomes first woman archbishop of Canterbury

By Lisa Hornung

   

1 of 2 | Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally meets well-wishers after her installation in Canterbury Cathedral in Britain on Wednesday. The archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop, leader of the Church of England, and ceremonial head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Sarah Mullally is the 106th and first female Archbishop of Canterbury since the role was created in 597. Photo by Neil Hall/EPA

March 25 (UPI) -- Sarah Elisabeth Mullally was installed Wednesday as the first woman to hold the title of archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

Mullally, 63, is the 106th person to hold the title of the most senior cleric in the Church of England and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, which includes some 85 million Anglicans around the world. And she is the only one who isn't a man.

In her first sermon as archbishop, she honored victims of church abuse.

"We hold victims and survivors in our hearts and in our prayers, and we must remain committed to truth, compassion, justice and action," she said.

"In a world already torn by conflict, suffering and division, we must also acknowledge the hurt that exists much closer to home," she said. "We must not overlook or minimize the pain experienced by those who have been harmed through the actions, inactions or failures of those in our own Christian churches and communities."

About 2,000 invited guests attended the ceremonial installment, which is historically called an enthronement, including William, Prince of Wales, and Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was also there. Also in the congregation was a contingent of nurses and caregivers from Canterbury to honor Mullally's former career as a nurse.

While Mullally has served in the position since January, the Wednesday's ceremony marks the symbolic beginning of her service as the archbishop. She was named to the position in October.

She replaced the former archbishop Justin Welby, who resigned in January 2025 over his handling of a sex abuse scandal in the diocese.

A Christian camp organizer, the late John Smyth, had allegedly abused boys at the camp in the 1970s and '80s. A report found that Smyth might have faced charges while he was alive if Welby had reported the abuse when he learned about it in 2013. Smyth died in 2018.

The first archbishop of Canterbury -- St. Augustine -- was enthroned in 587. The Church of England officially allowed women to become priests in 1994.

"As I look back over my life at the teenage Sarah, who put her faith in God and made a commitment to follow Jesus, I could never have imagined the future that lay ahead, and certainly not the ministry to which I am now called," she told the congregation.

Her enthronement is not welcomed by all in the Anglican Communion. Many traditionalists in Britain and abroad still believe that only men can be priests.

Earlier this month in Abuja, Nigeria, conservative clergy selected their own leader to follow, Rwandan Archbishop Laurent Mbanda.

Mbanda issued a statement in January in which he said the "majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy."

In the days before the service, Mullally walked an 87-mile pilgrimage for six days from London's St. Paul's Cathedral to Canterbury Cathedral. She is the first archbishop in modern times to make the trip, which was memorialized in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales.

Ahead of the ceremony, the Very Rev. David Monteith, dean of the Canterbury Cathedral, said, "Today matters."

Monteith described Mullally as a person of "really deep and profound faith," as demonstrated by her giving up her nursing career, he told The New York Times.

"That's a big, risky thing to do, and it's born of somebody who had a lively sense of faith and connection with God, sufficient for her to hear a call to turn in a different direction and follow another path," he said. "And I think that speaks well to me of somebody of integrity and of depth as well."

Approaching Sodom > In Orwellian Britain, truth and common sense give way to feelings and authority; French protection of minors from CSA inadequate - ECHR

 

UK’s Starmer Discovers What a Woman Is, Because a Court Tells Him So

Apr 23, 2025 6:00 am By Robert Spencer

New in PJ Media:

Keir Starmer identifies as prime minister of Britain, and no one is challenging his self-identification, so it could well be more or less accurate. Nevertheless, it is clear that whatever else he may be, Starmer is a typical early twenty-first-century leftist. For such people, if that is indeed what they identify as being, truth is an entirely subjective matter, based more upon how someone is feeling and what he or she or xe desires rather than upon objective reality. And so Starmer has just announced that a woman is indeed an adult female, but not because every human being since there have been human beings has known this, but because a British court has just said so.

It’s quintessential leftism. Remember the famous scene in Orwell’s “1984” when the torturer O’Brien forces the incipient independent thinker, Winston Smith, to affirm that two plus two equals five? The idea was to impress upon Winston the principle that reality was not what one sees with one’s own eyes, but what the rulers say it is. It’s the apex of totalitarian control, and it’s today’s shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain.

Sky News reported Tuesday that Starmer was “asked if he believed a transwoman should be considered a woman,” and Starmer gave the perfect response of a man who is convinced that two plus two equals five if his socialist masters say it is: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.”

What Starmer, and every sentient human being who has ever been asked this question, should have said is that men are men and women are women, and everyone knows what the differences between them are, and no one needs a court to say so. He could even have added that men can’t become women, and women can’t become men, and no amount of surgery and cosmetics will change that fact.

Instead, Starmer made it clear that if the court had said that a woman was a table or a head of lettuce or an alarm clock, he would have accepted it just as readily as he is now prepared to accept that a woman is an adult human female. His own perceptions don’t matter in the slightest degree; all that matters is what the relevant authority has declared.

If Britain were remotely a sane society today, this would cost Starmer the prime minister’s office, but he is in no electoral danger. His answer likely didn’t differ in any substantial way from the answer that the leaders of the other parties would have given. What is needed to restore sane rule to Britain and so many Western European states is not a new prime minister or president or chancellor or whatever, but a wholesale repudiation of the entire political class, which has uncritically embraced the left’s guiding fantasies and delusions.

There is more. Read the rest here.

====================================================================================

ECHR rules France failed to protect victims who were sexually assaulted as minors

April 24 (UPI) -- The European Court of Human Rights announced Thursday it has determined that French law and practice failed to protect three minors from sexual assault.

In court documents released by the ECHR, each of the three plaintiffs alleged that "investigating authorities and the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants, who had complained of acts of rape and had been aged only 13, 14 and 16 at the relevant dates, in an adequate manner."

The ECHR found the "French State had failed to fulfil its duty to apply, in practice, a criminal-law system capable of punishing non-consensual sexual acts," and that it "was not called upon to rule on the criminal liability of those who had perpetrated those acts and that its findings could not therefore be interpreted as an opinion on the guilt of the accused in the respective cases."

The applicants filed their suit in order to move France to "enact and apply criminal law provisions that effectively punish rape reported by teenage girls below the age of majority."

Related

• European court rules Switzerland violated human rights with climate inaction
• European court finds Italy violated human rights in landfill mismanagement
• Court rejects case involving Vatican's response to sex abuse

All three plaintiffs allege that their "status as minors and their situation of vulnerability at the time of the events were not adequately taken into account."

Two of the applicants further purport that "authorities did not promptly comply with their obligation to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the offenses they had complained of," one of whom also alleges she was "subjected to secondary victimization and discriminatory treatment" during criminal proceedings.

The ruling found that France failed to meet its obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, which relate to "prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment" and the "right to respect for private life." The ECHR also ruled that France has failed to meet its obligation under Article 14, which is "prohibition of discrimination."

Each of the plaintiffs will receive financial compensation as part of the judgment, with the remainder of the claims dismissed.

===================================================

Approaching Sodom - 3 Steps Back > UK Supreme Court redefines woman to birth sex; Hungary places child rights above LGBTQ priveliges; Idaho continues to back away from Sodom with education

 

UK Supreme Court rules the legal definition of a 'woman' refers to 'biological sex'

Europe

The UK's Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that UK law defines a "woman" as someone born biologically female, upholding an appeal by a Scottish group that challenged the legal recognition of transgender women. The ruling means a transgender person with a certificate recognising them as female should not be considered a woman under equality law.

Issued on: 16/04/2025 - 05:35Modified: 16/04/2025 - 17:12

5 min

By:

FRANCE 24

/

FRANCE 24

Video by:

Camille KNIGHT

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, excluding transgender people from the legal definition in a long-running dispute between a feminist group and the Scottish government.

Several women's groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women.

“Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.”

Five judges ruled unanimously that the UK Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.

‘The outcome should have far-reaching implications’

The ruling means that a transgender person with a certificate that recognises them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.

The ruling brings some clarity in the UK to a contentious issue that has polarised politics in some other countries, particularly the US Republican-controlled states over the last four years have been banning gender-affirming care for minors, barring transgender women and girls from sports competitions that align with their gender and restricting which public bathrooms transgender people can use.

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has signed orders to define the sexes as only male and female and has tried to kick transgender service members out of the military, block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and block their sports participation nationally. His efforts are being challenged in court.

Justice Patrick Hodge said the British ruling “does not remove protection from trans people", who are still protected from discrimination under UK law.

The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament saying 50% of the membership of the boards of Scottish public bodies should be women. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ... and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.”

The campaign group Scottish Trans said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, saying it would undermine legal protections for transgender people enshrined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Maggie Chapman, a Green Party lawmaker in the Scottish Parliament, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and "a huge blow to some of the most marginalised people in our society".

“Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonised by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long,” she said. “This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.”

Groups that had challenged the Scottish government uncorked a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights". 

“The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex – male and female – refers to reality, not to paperwork," said Maya Forstater of the group Sex Matters. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that she had been the victim of discrimination when she lost out on a job after posting gender-critical views online. 

The British government welcomed the ruling, saying it would provide clarity and confidence for women.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” it said.

Scotland’s semi-autonomous government said it accepted the judgment.

“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” First Minister John Swinney posted on X. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

For Women Scotland had argued that the Scottish officials' redefinition of woman went beyond Parliament’s powers. But Scottish officials then issued new guidance stating that the definition of woman included someone with a gender recognition certificate.

FWS successfully sought to overturn that.

“Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50% men and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” the group’s director Trina Budge said previously.

The challenge was rejected by a court in 2022, but the group was granted permission last year to take its case to the Supreme Court. 

Aidan O’Neill, a lawyer for FWS, told the Supreme Court judges – three men and two women – that under the Equality Act “sex” should refer to biological sex as understood “in ordinary, everyday language".

“Our position is your sex, whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy, is determined from conception in utero, even before one’s birth, by one’s body,” he said. “It is an expression of one’s bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state.”

The women’s rights group counted among its supporters author J.K. Rowling, who reportedly donated tens of thousands of pounds to back its work. The “Harry Potter” writer has been vocal in arguing that the rights for trans women should not come at the expense of those who are born biologically female.

Rowling said she was “so proud” of the “extraordinary, tenacious” For Women Scotland campaigners who took the case on a years-long battle through the courts.

Rowling wrote on X that “in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”

Opponents, including Amnesty International, said excluding transgender people from sex discrimination protections conflicted with human rights laws. 

Amnesty submitted a brief in court saying it was concerned about the deterioration of the rights for trans people in the UK and abroad.

“A blanket policy of barring trans women from single-sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim,” the human rights group said.

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

=====================================================================================

Hungary amends constitution, bans public LGBTQ+ gatherings

By Sheri Walsh

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (C, front) delivers his address on the opening day of the spring session of the Hungarian Parliament in Budapest, Hungary, in February 2024. On Monday, parliament voted to amend Hungary's constitution and ban public LGBTQ+ gatherings to "prioritize children's rights." File Photo by Szilard Koszticsak Hungary Out/EPA-EFE

April 14 (UPI) -- Hungary's parliament amended its constitution Monday to ban public LGBTQ+ gatherings, as it declared children's rights to "moral, physical and spiritual development supersede any right other than the right to life."

The amendment, which required a two-thirds vote, passed by a vote of 140 to 21 along party lines.

"Hungary's National Assembly has passed the 15th amendment to the Fundamental Law," announced government spokesperson Zoltan Kovacs in a post on X.

It is a "constitutional safeguard against ideological influences that they argue threaten the well-being of children, particularly in the context of events like Pride parades," he added. "The sweeping changes prioritize children's rights."

While the new amendment alleges LGBTQ+ pride marches are harmful to children, critics call it another step toward authoritarianism.

"This whole endeavor which we see launched by the government, it has nothing to do with children's rights," said Dániel Döbrentey, a lawyer with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, who called it "pure propaganda."

"It's not just about pride, it's about any assembly that is organized by the opposition," Momentum MP David Beto told the BBC. "This is only the first step they're taking in this one year campaign, and we are going to see many more laws enacted and passed in parliament that is very much against any democracy or any rule of law."

The amendment, which comes after a law was passed last month to ban LGBTQ+ pride marches, will allow the Hungarian government to temporarily suspend the citizenship of any dual nationals who are determined to be a threat to the country's security. It also mandates two genders.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has been in office since 2010, praised the legislation after declaring last month, "We won't let woke ideology endanger our kids."

How can woke ideology endanger kids? It celebrates fleshly desires as opposed to godly desires that God specifically commands us to develop. It opens the door to practicing sin and closes the door to practicing Christianity. Wokeness is an attack on the Christian church. LGBTQ+ was practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah - see if you can find those two cities today.

"Hungary's constitutional amendment is now law," Orban wrote Monday in a post on X.

"We're protecting children's development, affirming that a person is born either male or female and standing firm against drugs and foreign interference," he said.

"In Hungary, common sense matters."

Idaho will require schools to teach fetal development, show ultrasound video to students

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter Monday, March 31, 2025

Close-up of ultrasound picture | Getty Images

Idaho's Republican Gov. Brad Little has signed a law requiring schools to teach about fetal development, a move proponents believe will enable children in the state to learn that life begins at conception. 

Little signed Senate Bill 1046 into law last week, following its approval by the Republican-controlled Idaho Senate in a 27-8 vote on Feb. 27 and the Republican-controlled Idaho House of Representatives in a 63-6 vote on March 18.

The votes fell mainly along party lines, with most Republicans supporting the measure and most opposition coming from Democrats. Three Democrats in the Idaho House joined Republicans in supporting the legislation, while two Senate Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it. 

Beginning with the 2025-2026 school year, Senate Bill 1046 declares that each school district serving students in grades five through 12 "shall include instruction on human growth and development" in the curriculum.

The "human growth and development" lessons must include "A high-definition ultrasound video, at least three (3) minutes in duration, showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs, and other vital organs in early fetal development." 

The other requirement for the new curriculum involves the presentation of "a high-quality, computer-generated rendering or animation showing the process of fertilization and every stage of human development inside the uterus, noting significant markers in cell growth and organ development for every week of pregnancy until birth." 

The curriculum must be included in any course "that discusses or provides instruction concerning human biology, discusses or provides instruction concerning contraception, or discusses or provides instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases or sexually transmitted infections."

Lila Rose, pro-life activist and founder of the advocacy group Live Action, said in a statement that the "study of human development is a fundamental aspect of science education."

"I am thrilled that with the passage and signing of SB1046, students in the great state of Idaho will gain a deeper understanding of the incredible process of how human life begins," she said.

"This is a significant step toward equipping Idaho's students with accurate, necessary, and scientifically accurate information regarding human life in the womb," Rose added. "Idaho is now one of the pioneering states to ensure state-of-the-art education explaining and illustrating human development, like Live Action's Baby Olivia video, is included in state education standards. Through vivid, life-like animation, students can now witness the beauty and reality of life in the womb from the moment of fertilization."

Critics of the bill have argued that it could limit what teachers can include in their instruction on the topic. The Idaho Freedom Foundation contends, however, that "harmful myths" are being advanced by Democrats that human life does not begin at conception as a justification for more expansive legalized abortion. 

Idaho joins North Dakota and Tennessee as the states that require education on fetal development. 

"Every American student deserves access to the truth about when life begins and how it develops," Rose said. "These truths inform minds and foster a culture that respects human life at every stage of development."

The "Baby Olivia" video, shared by Rose in an X post published as Tennessee implemented a similar law to Idaho's Senate Bill 1046 last year, shows unborn babies at various stages of development as part of an effort to make the point that life begins at fertilization. 

Identifying conception as "the moment that life begins," the narrator asserts that "At fertilization, her gender, ethnicity, hair color, eye color and countless traits are already determined."

The video also details how the baby "begins to implant in the uterus about one week after fertilization."

"Her cells organize into what we call an embryo. At three weeks and one day, just 22 days after fertilization, Olivia's heartbeat can be detected," the video continues. "The buds of her arms and legs appear by four weeks. She begins to move between five and six weeks, with both spontaneous and reflexive movements. At six weeks from fertilization, her brain activity can be recorded and bone formation begins."

Additional development milestones highlighted in the video include the emergence of fingers and toes as well as the ability to hiccup at around seven-and-a-half weeks gestation, the ability to suck her thumb, swallow, grasp an object, touch her face, sigh and stretch nine weeks into the pregnancy, the maturation of taste buds by week 12, the ability to sense her mother's movements 14-18 weeks into the pregnancy and the development of speaking movements in her voice box at 18 weeks gestation. 

Insisting that "babies have survived outside the womb" as early as about 20 weeks into pregnancy, the video notes that "at 27 weeks, her eyes are responding to light, she can recognize her parents' voices and will even recognize lullabies and stories." The video concludes by labeling childbirth as the end point of Olivia's nine-month "journey."

====================================================================================