Church of England Jumps on the Trans Bandwagon


This is true but oddly enough, Henry DESPISED Luther and Lutheranism as a whole. The king remained, however narcissistic, devout throughout his life, and was for all intents and purposes a Catholic outside the walls of Rome.

The low to which modern Anglicanism has stooped is but an homage to Luther and a stab in the back for Henry. Yet an obvious result of the heresy of Protestantism.


That’s not the topic of the thread though. Got nothing to do with toolkits but instead everything to do with Gender Theory.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.


No, because if you were aware of what’s happening in Australia and other places, you would know that it has nothing to do with anti-bullying but instead has everything to do with Gender Theory indoctrination, ‘anti-bullying’ is simply a guise to deceive and condemn any who resist, because after all, on the face of it, like you said, what kind of a monster would be against an anti bullying program? clever how they deceive.

God Bless

Thank you for reading.


You are accusing a number of good (and distinguished) senior figures in the Church of England of deceit, of lying.

Commending the report, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said: “All bullying, including homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying causes profound damage, leading to higher levels of mental health disorders, self-harm, depression and suicide.

“Central to Christian theology is the truth that every single one of us is made in the image of God. Every one of us is loved unconditionally by God.”

Your accusation is disgraceful, and I think you should withdraw it.


I don’t withdraw it, I’m just pointing out that Gender Theory has been introduced here in my Country as well as others under the guise of anti-bullying.

When it comes to bullying I agree, but if you have been keeping up with current events, you would see that Christian teaching on marriage and the family is likened to bullying, hate, homophobia, bigotry, prejudice etc.

If they can accept the premise that a boy can identify as a girl and thus become a girl, then the rest will all follow. Those suffering from Gender Dysphoria should not be bullied, but neither should we be required to pretend they can do something which is physically and logically impossible.

Homosexuals should not be bullied, but neither should we be required to believe that a same sex union is the same as a marriage which again, not only goes against scripture, but defies logic and reason.

Thank you for reading.


Josh is right,

At least here in Canada, (in addition to Australia is seems), new lessons/courses are imposed on early grades.
Here, they call it “sexual education”, and the official goal is supposedly to make children aware of just that, sexual bullying and prevention. BUT, once you look at the content, most of it teaches to kids that sexuality is good, and that it is ok to “experience” it as long as the partner gives his/her consent. Furthermore, it teaches how it is normal for a male to dress as a female, and vice versa; the tolerance and normalization of transgenders.

We’re talking about young kids here, this is clearly indoctrination by the enemies of the Church.
Worst: Laws are passed so the parents have nothing to say about this. (division of the families)


In our modern politically correct culture any program which aims to curb ‘bad’ speech is going to be used to stop dissent. Heresy laws never went away. They just changed them from blaspheming God to blaspheming gross immorality.


The history of Anglicanism according to CAF is er,… interesting.


Have you heard the saying: “silence is acceptance” or “silence is consent”? :slight_smile: If someone acts contrary to your desires, AND you have the power to prevent it, AND you stay inactive, then it is the only rational analysis that you did not object to it. Referring to the “free will” only proves that you don’t really care.


I’m sure some of them wanted to act,
but it takes a lot of will and influence to pull an entire country back on track.

Feels like those who really wanted to stay true to their faith moved away, or secretly followed Rome.


I can understand why some Catholic people have confused divorce with annulment, but let’s just say that logically, knowing what happened, and since GKC has gone AWOL, what Henry sought was not divorce but annulment. And his case wasn’t bad, for the times.

The split from Rome was – apart from Henry’s (as far as we know honest) belief that his marriage was null – part of the growth of independent modern nation states in Europe (so partly political); just as the Pope’s (as far as we know honest) belief that an annulment was not justified was in the context of the Holy Father’s imprisonment by Queen Katherine’s nephew, the Emperor Charles (so partly political).


Henry had gotten a dispensation to marry Catherine of Aragon. And she testified that she had never consummated the marriage. Henry refused to accept the authority of the Church. He wanted out of the marriage and was not concerned with the validity of it. It was just that an annulment was the means by which he could remarry.


He did get a dispension, but after so many miscarriages/stillbirths and no male heir, he started to doubt the validity of his marriage. As I said in my earlier post, others took advantage of his doubts, but they began long before Anne Boleyn was in the picture. He was concerned about his marriage’s validity and eventually came to the conclusion that because he had no male heirs, he was effectively ‘childless’, as the verse in the Bible states. Eventually yes, he did refuse to accept the authority of the Church, but that came years afterwards his initial concerns.


His refusal to accept Church authority is the whole issue. He could have all sorts of doubts for any reason. It was the moment he decided he was the head of the Church that is the problem. I would think it is most often the case that grave error is the result of a longer process and not a sudden change.


Yes, of course his refusal to accept the authority of Rome is the whole issue. That’s the split. But when you surround that with accusations about his reason for seeking the annulment, you raise other issues. The fact is he was genuinely concerned with his lack of a male heir, genuinely worried that this might be because his marriage flouted Leviticus’ ruling, which specifically said marriage with a brother’s wife would be impure and unblessed with children.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit