I have written many times about downfall of the Episcopal church. They are the American version of the Church of England (the main Anglican church). The Episcopalians have been out-front on hard-left ideology for some time while the Anglicans have been at least a little more restrained.

A big obstacle to Christian unity, at least in the hope of full communion with Rome, is the ordination of women. For us, the male only priesthood is unchangeable dogma and not open to discussion. Anglicans have “ordained” women since 1994. I put that in quotes because the Vatican has formally declared that Anglicans do not have valid holy orders (and thus any valid sacraments requiring a priest as minister). If the Church of England were to be reunited with Rome, those who would become priests would have to be validly ordained. That is possible only for males. The women could be many things in the Catholic Church, but never priests.

In July, the Church of England, via vote (being separated from the Magisterium, this is how they decide matters of faith), decided to now also “ordain” women bishops. This doubles-down on the existing situation making full communion an even more distant possibility.

William Odie, writing for the excellent UK Catholic Herald looks at the situation:

It was, of course inevitable, having ordained women to its “priesthood” that the Church of England, mother Church of the Anglican Communion, would in the end ordain women to its “episcopate” (I place the key-words in inverted commas, not to be insulting but to indicate simply that most Anglicans use the words to describe something very different indeed from our notions of priesthood and episcopacy).

The General Synod has now decided on women bishops. All the obstacles are down. The mystery was why it took them so long: in the Catholic understanding, if a person is a priest, he is, if suitable, eligible to be ordained bishop; perhaps the fact that the Anglicans thought that special legislative procedures were necessary to make such a thing possible for women is yet another theological indication of how different our ideas of what is involved in priesthood really are.

What we all, Anglicans and Catholics alike, now need to register clearly is that this brings definitively to an end any last remaining hope of ultimate corporate reunion between us. Even Cardinal Walter Kasper, as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, some time ago declared that the ordination of women to the episcopate “signified a breaking away from apostolic tradition and a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.” He also pointed to the internal disunity within Anglicanism, describing the protective legislation for those opposed to women’s ordination in the Church of England (‘flying bishops” and so on) as the “unspoken institutionalism” of an “existing schism.”

The possibility that the reunion of Canterbury and Rome might still be possible has of course become ever more and more obviously delusional as the years have gone by. But still it has been fostered not only by Anglican ecumenists (most Anglicans have always thought that our doctrinal objections were preposterous, since they think that doctrine is intrinsically divisive, and best made up as you go along) but also by our own dwindling – but highly placed – band of Catholic ecumenists of the old school.

Provincial episcopal visitors (a/k/a “flying bishops”) are assigned when an Anglican parish refuses to accept their normal, local ordinary. These bishops provide “alternative episcopal oversight” and are males who have not “ordained” women. This concession is meant, at least for the near term, to appease more traditional parishes.

The only real hope Anglicans have of full communion with the Church is via conversion, either at the parish level through Pope Benedict’s Anglican Ordinariate or individually. The Ordinariate should be a particularly attractive option, as a parish can move as a group keeping much of their Anglican patrimony while coming into full communion with the Church founded by Christ.

Read Odie’s whole piece: Now the Church of England has decided on women bishops, ARCIC III is futile. As the CDF says, it is the Ordinariate now which is “ecumenism in the front row”.

There has been much press coverage of the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case. Unfortunately, most of it has been political activism and not journalism. That is not surprising and is to be expected. What is somewhat surprising is how far they will go to deceive the public, twisting the facts, citing highly biased sources and simply outright lying. Not a little…   A LOT.

The liberal media (redundant) is very unhappy with this (far too close) decision. They see forcing the public, all of the public, to purchase abortive contraceptives as basic healthcare (for the selfish mother, not so good for the child). Their misrepresentations seem designed to shape public opinion for future legislative and legal challenges.

James Agresti has written a well-researched piece for Crisis Magazine. He presents the facts in a clear, point-by-point manner:

In the buildup to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, and even more so in its aftermath, prominent news outlets have been aggressively spreading falsehoods about key aspects of the case. Beyond logical fallacies about who is imposing their will on others, many reports and commentaries also contain statements that are discredited by the scientific facts at the core of this case.

Although journalism standards give commentators “wide latitude” to express their views, this is not a license to mutilate the truth. In the words of New York Times deputy editorial page editor Trish Hall, “the facts in a piece must be supported and validated. You can have any opinion you would like, but you can’t say that a certain battle began on a certain day if it did not.”

Yet, the New York Times and other media outlets have repeatedly broadcast demonstrably false claims about the Hobby Lobby case. Among the most frequent of these are as follows:

• Medical science shows that the Obama administration’s “contraception” mandate has nothing to do with abortion.
• IUDs don’t terminate human embryos.
• Morning-after pills don’t kill human embryos.

As detailed below, all of those claims are deceitful and derived from politicized, unauthoritative sources. In reality, data from highly credible sources shows that:

• The Hobby Lobby case concerns the destruction of living, viable human embryos.
• IUDs terminate viable human embryos.
• Morning-after pills may kill embryos, and claims that they don’t are based upon crass distortions of scientific studies.

What follows is the documentation of these facts, along with the details of how media outlets have flouted basic standards of journalistic integrity in their coverage of this case.

---

---

Portraying activists as neutral authorities

The BBC’s journalism standards on “Avoiding Misleading Audiences” state that reporters should provide the “credentials” of their sources so “audiences can judge their status.” More specifically, BBC’s standards on “Impartiality” state that news professionals should not assume their sources are “unbiased” and should “make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made.”

That standard, which is meant to prevent journalists and commentators from portraying activists as impartial authorities, has been routinely ignored by news outlets in their coverage of the Hobby Lobby case. For example, the above-mentioned NPR and New York Times articles both rely upon claims from the following individuals to support the central narratives of their stories:

• Susan F. Wood, an associate professor of health policy at George Washington University and a former assistant commissioner for women’s health at the FDA.
• Diana Blithe, a biochemist and contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

What these NPR and New York Times articles fail to mention is that both Wood and Blithe are political donors to Barack Obama. More significantly, both are also donors to Emily’s List, a political action committee “dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.”

Those are not isolated examples. One of the commonly cited authorities in this case is the emergency contraception website operated by Princeton University’s Office of Population Research and people associated with it. Yet, the following information is almost never disclosed: The website was founded by James Trussell, a Princeton professor who is a senior fellow with the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that operates under “guiding principles” that include support for legalized abortion. Moreover, Trussell is “a member of the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and a member of the board of directors of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Society of Family Planning.”

Even so, Time magazine describes Trussell as “a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University who has done extensive research on the subject” of emergency contraception. He is similarly described by MSN, Reuters, and a host of other news organizations. Would these same media outlets describe a board member of the National Right to Life Committee in such a nondescript manner?

Another commonly cited authority in the Hobby Lobby case is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Although media outlets regularly quote this organization as if were neutral, it has a track record of consistently opposing pro-life legislation and issuing statements that are transparently false. For instance, ACOG has declared “there is no evidence” a fetus can feel pain “until 29 weeks at the earliest” despite copious evidence to the contrary from journals such as Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Pain: Clinical Updates, and PLoS ONE.

Furthermore, ACOG was caught modifying its clinical findings on partial-birth abortion at the behest of a Clinton White House lawyer. Incidentally, this lawyer was Elena Kagan — who President Obama later appointed to the Supreme Court. Again, media coverage is virtually devoid of this information, which has the result of deceiving audiences through the omission of vital context.

Journalistic integrity?

In flagrant disregard for basic standards of honest journalism, media outlets have propagated claims about the Hobby Lobby case that are falsified by credible scientific publications.

Many of these news organizations have written guidelines that call for unconditional integrity. The New York Times, for example, declares that “the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach,” and the organization has “an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small.”

Whether or not those are just lofty words will be shown by how the media responds to the facts above.

Read the whole piece: Media Repeatedly Deceives Public in Hobby Lobby Coverage.

Yesterday the Supreme Court, voting along their usual ideological lines, voted 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby. This is wonderful news for religious freedom, but still very far from rolling-back the numerous, unprecedented attacks on it by the current administration.

The good news in the Hobby Lobby decision is that (in at least some circumstances) people do not give up their religious rights simply because they operate a for-profit business. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporation by a single extended family. The Greens are Protestant Christians who object to abortifacient “contraceptives” (e.g. “Plan B”) in their insurance policies as mandated by Obamacare.

Other cases are not directly effected unless they match the profile of this case. Exactly how closely held a corporation must be or how large it can be before religious freedom rights of its owners evaporate is unclear. Also unclear is how this will effect Catholic owned companies and non-profits who object to paying for any contraception. The Little Sisters of the Poor (for example) might not be helped at all.

As you know, there is little unbiased journalism any more so do not expect to find a completely fair analysis in the mainstream media. The conservative side claims the ruling means more than it does. The liberal side claims the sky is falling with this conservative success in their war on women. For sanity, try not to read what any politician of either side says.

With that disclaimer, Politico has as good coverage as anybody:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on Monday that employers with religious objections can opt out of providing contraception coverage under Obamacare.

The ruling deals directly with only a small provision of Obamacare and will not take down the entire law but it amounts to a huge black eye for Obamacare, the administration and its backers. The justices have given Obamacare opponents their most significant political victory against the health care law, reinforcing their argument that the law and President Barack Obama are encroaching on Americans’ freedoms.

“We doubt that the Congress that enacted [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] – or, for that matter, ACA – would have believed it a tolerable result to put family-run businesses to the choice of violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or making all of their employees lose their existing healthcare plans,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.

The court’s four liberal justices called it a decision of “startling breadth” and said that it allows companies to “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The court appeared to reject, 7-2, the Obama administration’s argument that for-profit companies cannot assert religious rights under RFRA. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the portion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent that argues companies do not have such rights. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan did not join that section and did not explicitly state their views on the point.

The decision could open the door to other closely held corporations seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs. It marks the first time that the Supreme Court has allowed companies the ability to declare a religious belief – a decision that could reverberate far past the Affordable Care Act to other laws and issues.

In the short term, the ruling appears to allow the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties to opt out of the health care law’s requirement that they provide all Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control in their health plans.

Read the whole piece: SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control.

To get a sense of (completely unwarranted) panic of the left, The Federalist has collected tweets in 6 Stupid Arguments About Hobby Lobby From Dumb Liberals. Obviously not an unbiased piece, but the tweets are quoted verbatim.

Most countries have an organization to support their vowed women religious. In the United States, we uniquely have two. There is the older (1956), Leadership Council of Women Religious (LCWR) and the newer, smaller Council of Majors Superiors of Women Religious. The later was established in 1992 in direct response to the former evolving further and further away from the faith.

Note that the LCWR expresses the viewpoints of the *leadership* of its membership and not necessarily individual women religious. At that level, things are mixed. Also, it must be noted that the organizations “represented” by the LCWR do some very good (and not so good) work. The question is: are they Catholic? This matters because the Church does not exist to be just another social services agency, but to lead as many souls as possible to heaven. When one claims to be Catholic, but professes beliefs directly contrary to the faith, the level of scandal is quite serious. This is compounded when they have canonical status granted by the pope.

Such is the case with the LCWR. There is a long litany of issues including much support for new age beliefs, “moving beyond Jesus” (I am not making that up), some support abortion (even shepherding women *into* abortuaries) and so on. The Vatican has noticed and action begun under Benedict, continued under Francis, to salvage them and return them to the Church. It may be too late, as their members are dying out and not being replaced. This is in stark contrast BTW to the faithful orders.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently addressed them. His remarks were charitable but direct, if not unusual as the LCWR has been treated with kid-gloves for so very long. His remarks are online HERE. They are not long and can be read quickly.

Naturally, the LCWR has not embraced this. They have previously taken their case to every liberal outlet (e.g. 60 Minutes, NPR, etc.) and presented themselves as unjustly bullied and harassed by meanie men in the Vatican. FWIW, IMHO, the truth is they are spoiled children who for far too long have failed to be disciplined.

Professor Anthony Esolen wrote a wonderful piece for The Catholic Thing to capture the essence (not a literal transcript) of the LCWR’s response.

CDF: “Sisters, do you believe and affirm that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, begotten and not made, the second Person of the Holy Trinity?”

LCWR: “Why are you asking us that question? What gives you the authority to ask it?”

CDF: “Again, Sisters, do you believe and affirm that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, incarnate by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary?”

LCWR: “You have no right to pick on us simply because we’re women. You arrogant misogynists! We believe that hierarchical structures must be dismantled!?”

CDF: “Sisters, you seem to argue that you are “beyond Jesus.” Do you in fact believe that man may be saved in the name of Jesus alone? That Christ alone reveals the Father to man, and man to himself?”

LCWR: “Why are you using sexist language? We are offended by your pronouns.”

CDF: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father?”

LCWR: “We have advanced degrees in theology. We have received awards from our friends – we mean, from prestigious theological societies. Why are you suggesting that we are incompetent? Is it because we’re women?”

CDF: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, yes or no?”

LCWR: “Where were you when bishops were hiding pedophiles? Why are you picking on us all of a sudden? Is it to distract people from your incompetence?”

CDF: “Sisters, the question is fundamental. At every Mass we affirm that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the sole savior of man – of the human race. Do you believe this or not?”

LCWR: “We don’t like your attitude! Why are you shouting? What is this really all about?”

CDF: “All right, let’s move to something else. Do you affirm the Church’s teachings regarding marriage, sexual relations, the family, and the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death?”

LCWR: “Why are you ignoring the work we do with the poor?”

CDF: “Work with the poor is not at issue. Do you affirm the Church’s teachings?”

LCWR: “Too many people forget that the Church has many teachings regarding the poor!?”

CDF: “Those are not in question. Do you affirm the Church’s prohibitions against contraception, abortion, sodomy, and divorce?”

LCWR: “Why do you assume that we speak with one voice?”

CDF: “We assume no such thing. We want to know whether you affirm the Church’s teachings.””

LCWR: “The Church needs women in positions of leadership.””

CDF: “As to that, the question is whether you or other women should be leading this organization. Do you affirm the Church’s teachings?”

LCWR: “Which teachings?”

CDF: “Do you affirm the Church’s teachings on the broad range of sexual issues?”

LCWR: “We are distressed that women’s voices have not been heard!?”

It goes on, but you get the idea. Read the whole article at The Catholic Thing: Stamp Your Feet!. Professor Esolen and readers have good additional comments.

For just a sample of the shenanigans of the LCWR, see Father John Zuhlsdorf’s Nuns Gone Wild: A Trip Down Memory Lane. Father also comments on an independent study of a LCWR group in A study of the Sinsinawa Dominicans (hint: LCWR). Read and weep..

It has been exactly 1 year since my Episcopal experiment piece. Once a thriving, orthodox Christian community with beliefs similar to Catholicism, they have now embraced every progressive desire. Contraception, remarriage, married priests, married bishops, women priests, women bishops, gay priests, gay bishops, gay married priests, gay married bishops, cross-dressing clergy, abortion, new age thinking (at least in many speeches of their Presiding Bishop)…   all if it.

How has this experiment fared? They are disappearing fast. Without the Magisterium to keep them in-check, they have gone further and further off course. These same, largely secular forces are everywhere including within Catholicism. They can’t change doctrine here, but they can chip around the edges and bring much scandal. I take the Episcopal experiment as a warning for us.

One last point: the displaced Episcopalians will go somewhere. I hope they, and everyone in the world for that matter, become Catholic. A hope that they truly convert. I am concerned however that some (speaking here of the particularly liberal ones) will come championing the same ideals that failed Christ and truth in their last community. Come, leave scandal behind, be changed by the Church not to change her.

Recently Rob Kerby covered the current state of the Episcopal church for beliefnet:

Prominent bishops are pulling out. Convention-goers were told headquarters had spent $18 million suing local congregations. Members are leaving at a record rate. This is no longer George Washington’s church – once the largest denomination in the colonies.

The headlines coming out of the Episcopal Church’s annual U.S. convention are stunning – endorsement of cross-dressing clergy, blessing same-sex marriage, the sale of their headquarters since they can’t afford to maintain it.

The American branch of the Church of England, founded when the Vatican balked at permitting King Henry VIII to continue annulling marriages to any wife who failed to bear him sons, is in trouble.

Somehow slipping out of the headlines is a harsh reality that the denomination has been deserted in droves by an angry or ambivalent membership. Six prominent bishops are ready to take their large dioceses out of the American church and align with conservative Anglican groups in Africa and South America.

“An interesting moment came at a press conference on Saturday,” reports convention attendee David Virtue, “when I asked Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, if she saw the irony in that the House of Deputies would like to see the Church Center at 815 2nd Avenue in New York sold (it has a $37.5 million mortgage debt and needs $8.5 million to maintain yearly) while at the same time the national church spent $18 million litigating for properties, many of which will lie fallow at the end of the day.”

This is no longer George Washington’s Episcopal Church – in 1776 the largest denomination in the rebellious British colonies. Membership has dropped so dramatically that today there are 20 times more Baptists than Episcopalians.

U.S. Catholics out-number the Episcopal Church 33-to-1. There are more Jews than Episcopalians. Twice as many Mormons as Episcopalians. Even the little African Methodist Episcopal denomination – founded in in 1787 – has passed the Episcopalians.

Among the old mainstream denominations reporting to the National Council of Churches, the Episcopal Church suffered the worst loss of membership from 1992-2002 – plunging from 3.4 million members to 2.3 million for a 32 percent loss. In the NCC’s 2012 yearbook, the Episcopal Church admitted another 2.71 percent annual membership loss.

Convention attendees were told that they had spent $18 million this year suing their own local congregations – those which have protested the denomination’s policies by trying to secede. The New York hierarchy has consistently won in court – asserting that the local members signed over their buildings decades ago. As a result, some of the largest Episcopal congregations in the United States have been forced to vacate their buildings and meet elsewhere.

So now, convention delegates were told, the denomination is the proud owner of scores of empty buildings nationwide – and liable for their upkeep in a depressed real estate market where empty church buildings are less than prime property. It’s the classic “dog in a manger.” The denomination has managed to keep the buildings – for which it has little use. However, they made their point – refusing to allow the congregations which built the facilities to have any benefit after generations of sacrifice, donations and volunteerism.

“One former Episcopal priest wrote me, “The irony is that after all their property suits to get control of empty buildings, they now are losing their main property.”

“But this cost cutting measure may not be enough to salvage the long term solvency of the Episcopal Church. The church is hemorrhaging money like crazy and no one seems to know how to turn off the spigot.”

“The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA,” writes Christian author Charlotte Allen. – in which large parishes and entire dioceses are opting out of the church, isn’t simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

There is much, much more. Read the entire piece: Why is the Episcopal Church near collapse?

There are also many good comments. One man, responding to Rob Kerby’s title question says: “You are coming to this discussion late…   As if asking ‘are the Mastodons in any danger?'”

Repeating my bottom line from last year: Episcopalians manifest the dream liberals hold for the Catholic Church and the result is disastrous. This is not to say we do not suffer their presence in our ranks, but here ancient doctrine is preserved not progressed.