CofE riposte on accusations against the Rt Rev Stephen Cottrell

The Church of England has issued the following Statement following a recent allegations made a pressure group; the Church’s statement stresses that the accusations against the Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell are entirely without foundation.


Statement on the Archbishop of York designate, the Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell

18/12/19

A spokesperson from the Church of England said:

“With reference to the recent statement from a pressure group, the accusations made against the Right Reverend Stephen Cottrell are entirely without foundation. It is untrue that Bishop Stephen suggested to a governor of a Church of England School that his views on sexuality were not welcome and he could leave. Bishop Stephen made that clear at the time and subsequently in an Ad Clerum. It is also untrue that Bishop Stephen suggested to any other clergy that they should leave the Church of England. As he is said at his announcement, the Church of England is a Church for all people, welcoming everyone.

“He upholds the teaching of the Church of England that recognises marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Bishop Stephen has not endorsed gender transitioning in and of itself for children but has pastoral concern for any child affected by gender dysphoria.

“He holds biblical truth as sacred and is in all matters guided by the gospel. Speaking at the press conference for his announcement he said ‘What binds us together is not our views on this issue or that issue, what binds us together is our faith in Jesus Christ. We say water is thicker than blood. It is our baptism and our belonging to each other that really matters’.”


Cite this article as: David Pocklington, "CofE riposte on accusations against the Rt Rev Stephen Cottrell" in Law & Religion UK, 18 December 2019, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2019/12/18/cofe-riposte-on-accusations-against-the-rt-rev-stephen-cottrell/

3 thoughts on “CofE riposte on accusations against the Rt Rev Stephen Cottrell

  1. Readers can be forgiven for not knowing what any of this is about. I had to remind myself. It is almost as though the “riposte” (to what, exactly? – the riposte makes a point of not saying) was designed to deny everything, without giving any further publicity to whatever it was that might be being denied. (This isn’t a promising start to his Chelmsford grace’s period in office in York.)

    In 2004, I mounted a legal challenge to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), after it had been enacted but before it was implemented. (Please see my “Stop gender fraud!” blog post.) But even the Gender Recognition Act, for all its faults, which include those I drew attention to in 2004 and 2005, begins with these words, in Section 1(1):

    “A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate”

    That remains the law. In the UK, legally-speaking, there are no transgendered children, or transgendered minors of any age. Everybody else’s gender is the same as his or her sex, as per the Common Law as declared in Corbett v Corbett.

    A non-Christian doctrine which contradicts orthodox Christian teaching, to the effect that there could exist transgendered *children*, was peddled in a Church of England school, with the bishop’s approval. The doctrine had been introduced with the help of a pro-genital-mutilation organisation called Mermaids. That (I discovered afresh tonight) is what the evasive riposte is about.

    The Mermaids doctrine that there could exist transgendered children manifestly contradicts GRA s1(1). Anybody who refers to the boy concerned as “him”, is keeping the law. Anybody who refers to him as “her”, is misgendering him.

    It follows that the informal, coming-out ceremony at school, alternative to the formalities of the GRA, which the bishop has defended, in which (according to Mermaids doctrine) a child began and completed his gender transition, was as unlawful and every bit as much a legal nullity as would have been a purported wedding of this poor, abused, troubled and exploited child, to one of his class-mates, purportedly solemnised just as informally by the class teacher who presided over the coming-out ceremony that is at the root of this controversy, against which (I have learnt tonight) a certain Rev John Parker has spoken out, who is now consoled by Christian Concern, which may or may not be the mystery “pressure goup” referred to cryptically in the impenitrable riposte.

  2. We don’t say “Water is thicker than blood”, the ancient proverb is that “Blood is thicker than water” and means that familial bonds will always be stronger than bonds of friendship or love.

    • The statement in the Press Release appears to be correct when read in the context of the last two sentences of the Press Release – ‘What binds us together is not our views on this issue or that issue, what binds us together is our faith in Jesus Christ. We say water is thicker than blood. It is our baptism and our belonging to each other that really matters’.”

Leave a Reply to JohnAllman.UK Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *