lifesitenews--2020-01-11--Pro-life org contacts every abortion facility in US, finds disturbing trends

January 10 , 2020 ( Operation Rescue ) — A new survey of abortion facilities in the U.S. has revealed a new , disturbing industry-wide trend that shows that overall in 2019 , surgical abortion facilities have expanded into the late-term abortion market , where lucrative multi-day procedures can reap quick profits .
The survey also found the following : • There are 710 abortion facilities in the U.S. , comprising 464 surgical and 245 medical abortion clinics .
• The percentage of surgical abortion facilities that self-impose abortion limits at 13 weeks or earlier dropped from 46 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning more are entering the second and even third-trimester abortion markets .
• The number of abortion facilities willing to do abortions after 20 weeks gestation increased in 2019 .
• The national average cost of a first-trimester abortion rose to a record high of $ 603 in 2019 , the greatest increase in three years .
• The national average wait time for abortion appointments remains under a week at 6.8 days , which is more than two weeks less than it takes to arrange a first appointment with a family physician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during our survey this year either debunks pro-abortion rhetoric or red-flags dangerous trends , ” said Troy Newman , President of Operation Rescue .
“ We see women being exploited by rising prices and a rush to get abortions done .
We also see abortion becoming riskier with the new push into dangerous late-term abortions .
This information exposes areas where more can be done to save lives.
” Each year , Operation Rescue conducts a nationwide survey that involves contact with each abortion business in the U.S .
The information gathered about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most accurate data available .
This most recent data was compiled by Operation Rescue , which conducted a survey of all abortion facilities in the U.S. from November 18 through December 6 , 2019 .
Operation Rescue defines “ abortion clinics ” as those businesses that conduct abortions outside a hospital setting .
There are two categories of abortion clinics : • Surgical Abortion Clinics : These offices conduct surgical abortions .
Almost always , surgical facilities also distribute abortion-inducing drugs .
• Medical Abortion Clinics : These offices supply abortions through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other chemical means .
They do not conduct surgical abortions .
While most states set gestational limits for abortions , each abortion facility has its own self-imposed limit on how far into a pregnancy it is willing to conduct an abortion .
Because of the nature of chemical abortions , facilities that offer only that option limit abortions to 11 weeks or less .
But the number of surgical abortion facilities willing to push beyond the first trimester is on the rise .
In 2018 , 46 % of all surgical abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks or under .
However , in 2019 , only 31 % of all surgical abortion facilities restricted themselves to the first trimester of pregnancy .
Surgical abortion clinics that set self-imposed abortion limits between 14–19 weeks gestation rose by eight percent in 2019 , while clinics that now conduct abortions at 20 weeks or more rose by 3 percent .
Currently , there are 143 surgical abortion facilities that will conduct abortions at 20 weeks or more .
Over the past ten years , the number of abortion facilities that are willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trimester of pregnancy starting at 28 weeks changed little — until 2019 when the number jumped from six to eight .
Planned Parenthood ’ s number of facilities that will do abortions at 20 weeks or higher dropped by two clinics in 2019 , while independent abortion facilities that will do these dangerous and controversial abortions added a dozen locations .
This indicates that Planned Parenthood is more interested in expanding into the early-term medical abortion market than into the lucrative but risky late-term abortion market .
In fact , Planned Parenthood dominates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortions through chemical means , operating 211 out of the 246 such clinic now open .
While some of these facilities are very open about having no gestational limits for abortions , others may state limits under the third trimester of pregnancy .
However , since these will conduct abortions later for “ fetal indications ” or other so-called “ medical ” reasons , this essentially strips away all stated gestational limits .
§ Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder , Colorado .
Stated limit : As high as needed .
Owner : Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Options in Albuquerque , New Mexico .
Stated limit : None .
Owner : Curtis Boyd .
According to the Centers for Disease Control , in 2016 , the most recent year with data available , 91 % of all abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy , at or below 13 weeks gestation .
The national average cost of a first trimester abortion in 2019 was $ 603 .
The cost of a first trimester abortion has steadily risen over the past five years when the national average cost was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
The cost of an abortion varied by type of abortion and by kind of facility .
The average cost of a surgical abortion was $ 620 .
Chemical abortions at surgical abortion facilities nationwide averaged $ 584 .
However , abortion drugs at a clinic that only offers chemical abortions were higher at an average of $ 604 .
The fact that abortion drugs obtained at non-surgical abortion facilities are more expensive than the same drugs dispensed by a surgical abortion facility is an interesting one , especially since it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it does not have to be equipped to conduct surgeries and needs no surgically trained staff which might require higher salaries .
Only speculative explanations exist for this price inconsistency .
The state with the highest cost of a first trimester surgical abortion is Wyoming at $ 1099 , while the state with the highest average price for abortion-inducing drugs is Colorado at $ 858 .
North Carolina came in as the state with the lowest average cost for a first trimester surgical abortion at $ 408 .
Nebraska held the distinction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its three abortion facilities average just $ 287 for abortion drugs .
It is not unusual to hear news reports about how women must wait weeks to get an abortion appointment due to the passage of pro-life laws .
This is just not true .
The national average time a woman must wait for an abortion is 6.8 days — under a week .
This time is measured from the day a woman picks up the phone to make an appointment to the day of her actual abortion procedure .
It includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 24–72 hours .
In contrast , one 2017 report notes that nationally it takes an average of 24 days to get an appointment with a family physician , between 12 and 51 days to get an appointment with an obstetrician , and 32.2 days to get an appointment with a dermatologist .
“ Because we obtained data from every abortion facility in the U.S. , we know that this is the most accurate data out there on actual abortion wait times , ” said Newman .
“ News reports that say women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are nothing but fake news that is meant to manipulate public opinion against pro-life laws.
” Abortion facilities are seeking to replace lost income due to decreased demand for abortion .
One way to increase profits is to expand into the second and third trimester abortion market where clinics have been known to charge over $ 20,000 for the latest of abortions .
“ It takes a lot of 600-dollar abortions to earn what they can charge for one third trimester abortion , ” said Newman .
“ When expanding into late-term abortions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of money , it becomes a predatory practice .
Late-term abortions pose grave dangers to women .
As the pregnancy progresses , the risks of life-threatening complications or death go up with it.
” Until a complete ban on all abortions can be accomplished , Operation Rescue supports gestational limits on abortions .
The increase in abortion costs is reflective of what a woman would pay out of her pocket .
However , many clinics operate on a sliding scale or can bill insurance to cover part of the costs .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal and state governments , along with reimbursements from private abortion funds .
This allows abortion clinics to raise prices and profits , while not driving away customers .
“ We are thankful that President Donald Trump has already acted to stop Title X Family Planning grants from going to businesses that conduct or refer for abortions , ” said Newman .
“ But more must be done .
We must completely defund abortion businesses of all state and federal tax dollars as well as remove the option for Obamacare plans to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait time for abortions is under a week , there are still many places , like California , where women can walk into to an abortion facility without an appointment and walk out after having an abortion all on the same day .
This is predatory practice that many states have addressed with reflection periods and other regulations to keep abortion businesses from preying on women in crisis when good decision-making is difficult .
However , more needs to be done to protect women in all states from these abusive abortion practices that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In all , the pro-life movement has never been in a better position with President Trump establishing an administration that values and protects life from conception until natural death , and is appointing conservative justices that will uphold pro-life laws that have dominated state legislatures .
Reversing the wrongly-decided Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision looks likely should President Trump be re-elected in November .
The future looks bright for legislation that will save innocent lives and spare women harm from abortion .
“ There is more work to be done to push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America abortion free , ” said Newman .
“ We want to see abortion clinic numbers drop to zero .
We want to see abortions drop to zero .
Until that happens , we have much to do , and our survey shows areas where we can focus attention to save even more lives .
The Abortion Cartel is desperate and fighting back , but we have been equipped with the information , tools , and conditions we need to finally move on to victory .
”

A new survey of abortion facilities in the U.S. has revealed a new, disturbing industry-wide trend.
January 10, 2020 (Operation Rescue) — A new survey of abortion facilities in the U.S. has revealed a new, disturbing industry-wide trend that shows that overall in 2019, surgical abortion facilities have expanded into the late-term abortion market, where lucrative multi-day procedures can reap quick profits.
The survey also found the following:
There are 710 abortion facilities in the U.S., comprising 464 surgical and 245 medical abortion clinics.
in the U.S., comprising 464 surgical and 245 medical abortion clinics. The percentage of surgical abortion facilities that self-impose abortion limits at 13 weeks or earlier dropped from 46% in 2018 to 31% in 2019, meaning more are entering the second and even third-trimester abortion markets.
The number of abortion facilities willing to do abortions after 20 weeks gestation increased in 2019.
The national average cost of a first-trimester abortion rose to a record high of $603 in 2019, the greatest increase in three years.
The national average wait time for abortion appointments remains under a week at 6.8 days, which is more than two weeks less than it takes to arrange a first appointment with a family physician.
“Much of the data gathered during our survey this year either debunks pro-abortion rhetoric or red-flags dangerous trends,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “We see women being exploited by rising prices and a rush to get abortions done. We also see abortion becoming riskier with the new push into dangerous late-term abortions. This information exposes areas where more can be done to save lives.”
Methodology
Each year, Operation Rescue conducts a nationwide survey that involves contact with each abortion business in the U.S. The information gathered about the abortion clinics and their practices represents the most accurate data available.
This most recent data was compiled by Operation Rescue, which conducted a survey of all abortion facilities in the U.S. from November 18 through December 6, 2019.
Operation Rescue defines “abortion clinics” as those businesses that conduct abortions outside a hospital setting. There are two categories of abortion clinics:
Surgical Abortion Clinics: These offices conduct surgical abortions. Almost always, surgical facilities also distribute abortion-inducing drugs.
These offices conduct surgical abortions. Almost always, surgical facilities also distribute abortion-inducing drugs. Medical Abortion Clinics: These offices supply abortions through the administration of drugs (pills) or other chemical means. They do not conduct surgical abortions.
Gestational Age Limits
While most states set gestational limits for abortions, each abortion facility has its own self-imposed limit on how far into a pregnancy it is willing to conduct an abortion.
Because of the nature of chemical abortions, facilities that offer only that option limit abortions to 11 weeks or less.
But the number of surgical abortion facilities willing to push beyond the first trimester is on the rise.
In 2018, 46% of all surgical abortion facilities set an abortion limit of 13 weeks or under. However, in 2019, only 31% of all surgical abortion facilities restricted themselves to the first trimester of pregnancy.
Surgical abortion clinics that set self-imposed abortion limits between 14–19 weeks gestation rose by eight percent in 2019, while clinics that now conduct abortions at 20 weeks or more rose by 3 percent.
Currently, there are 143 surgical abortion facilities that will conduct abortions at 20 weeks or more.
Over the past ten years, the number of abortion facilities that are willing to openly conduct abortions into the third trimester of pregnancy starting at 28 weeks changed little — until 2019 when the number jumped from six to eight.
Planned Parenthood’s number of facilities that will do abortions at 20 weeks or higher dropped by two clinics in 2019, while independent abortion facilities that will do these dangerous and controversial abortions added a dozen locations.
This indicates that Planned Parenthood is more interested in expanding into the early-term medical abortion market than into the lucrative but risky late-term abortion market.
In fact, Planned Parenthood dominates in ownership of clinics that only offer abortions through chemical means, operating 211 out of the 246 such clinic now open.
While some of these facilities are very open about having no gestational limits for abortions, others may state limits under the third trimester of pregnancy. However, since these will conduct abortions later for “fetal indications” or other so-called “medical” reasons, this essentially strips away all stated gestational limits.
Those clinics include:
§ Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado.
Stated limit: As high as needed. Owner: Warren Hern.
§ Capital Women’s Services in Washington, D.C.
Stated limit: 36 weeks. Stake Holder: Steven Chase Brigham.
§ CARE (Formerly AbortionClinics.org) in Bethesda, Maryland.
Stated limit: 35 weeks. Owner: LeRoy Carhart.
§ Pro-Choice Center in Beverly Hills, California.
Stated limit: None. Owner: Josepha Seletz.
§ Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Stated limit: None. Owner: Curtis Boyd.
§ Washington Surgi-Clinic
Stated limit: 28 weeks. Owner: Cesare Santangelo.
§ Women’s Med Center in Dayton, Ohio.
Stated limit: 22 weeks. Owner: Martin Haskell.
§ DuPont Clinic, Washington, D.C.
Stated limit: None. Operators: Matthew Reaves, Stacey Rubin, & Jessica Kuperstock
First Trimester Abortion Costs
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2016, the most recent year with data available, 91% of all abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy, at or below 13 weeks gestation.
The national average cost of a first trimester abortion in 2019 was $603.
The cost of a first trimester abortion has steadily risen over the past five years when the national average cost was $577 — $26 less than 2019.
The cost of an abortion varied by type of abortion and by kind of facility. The average cost of a surgical abortion was $620.
Chemical abortions at surgical abortion facilities nationwide averaged $584. However, abortion drugs at a clinic that only offers chemical abortions were higher at an average of $604.
The fact that abortion drugs obtained at non-surgical abortion facilities are more expensive than the same drugs dispensed by a surgical abortion facility is an interesting one, especially since it is less expensive to operate a pill clinic because it does not have to be equipped to conduct surgeries and needs no surgically trained staff which might require higher salaries.
Only speculative explanations exist for this price inconsistency.
The state with the highest cost of a first trimester surgical abortion is Wyoming at $1099, while the state with the highest average price for abortion-inducing drugs is Colorado at $858.
North Carolina came in as the state with the lowest average cost for a first trimester surgical abortion at $408. Nebraska held the distinction of having the least expensive medical abortions. Its three abortion facilities average just $287 for abortion drugs.
Wait times for appointments
It is not unusual to hear news reports about how women must wait weeks to get an abortion appointment due to the passage of pro-life laws.
This is just not true.
The national average time a woman must wait for an abortion is 6.8 days — under a week. This time is measured from the day a woman picks up the phone to make an appointment to the day of her actual abortion procedure. It includes a first appointment and state-mandated reflection times of 24–72 hours.
In contrast, one 2017 report notes that nationally it takes an average of 24 days to get an appointment with a family physician, between 12 and 51 days to get an appointment with an obstetrician, and 32.2 days to get an appointment with a dermatologist.
“Because we obtained data from every abortion facility in the U.S., we know that this is the most accurate data out there on actual abortion wait times,” said Newman. “News reports that say women have to wait weeks for abortion appointments are nothing but fake news that is meant to manipulate public opinion against pro-life laws.”
Conclusions
Late-term abortions
Abortion facilities are seeking to replace lost income due to decreased demand for abortion. One way to increase profits is to expand into the second and third trimester abortion market where clinics have been known to charge over $20,000 for the latest of abortions.
“It takes a lot of 600-dollar abortions to earn what they can charge for one third trimester abortion,” said Newman. “When expanding into late-term abortions becomes a quick way to make a lot of money, it becomes a predatory practice. Late-term abortions pose grave dangers to women. As the pregnancy progresses, the risks of life-threatening complications or death go up with it.”
Until a complete ban on all abortions can be accomplished, Operation Rescue supports gestational limits on abortions.
Profit-taking
The increase in abortion costs is reflective of what a woman would pay out of her pocket. However, many clinics operate on a sliding scale or can bill insurance to cover part of the costs. Many abortion businesses also receive subsidies from the federal and state governments, along with reimbursements from private abortion funds. This allows abortion clinics to raise prices and profits, while not driving away customers.
“We are thankful that President Donald Trump has already acted to stop Title X Family Planning grants from going to businesses that conduct or refer for abortions,” said Newman. “But more must be done. We must completely defund abortion businesses of all state and federal tax dollars as well as remove the option for Obamacare plans to pay for abortions.”
Rush to close the deal
While the national average wait time for abortions is under a week, there are still many places, like California, where women can walk into to an abortion facility without an appointment and walk out after having an abortion all on the same day. This is predatory practice that many states have addressed with reflection periods and other regulations to keep abortion businesses from preying on women in crisis when good decision-making is difficult. However, more needs to be done to protect women in all states from these abusive abortion practices that pressure and rush women into abortions.
Reason for hope
In all, the pro-life movement has never been in a better position with President Trump establishing an administration that values and protects life from conception until natural death, and is appointing conservative justices that will uphold pro-life laws that have dominated state legislatures. Reversing the wrongly-decided Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision looks likely should President Trump be re-elected in November. The future looks bright for legislation that will save innocent lives and spare women harm from abortion.
“There is more work to be done to push the ball over the goal-line and make America abortion free,” said Newman. “We want to see abortion clinic numbers drop to zero. We want to see abortions drop to zero. Until that happens, we have much to do, and our survey shows areas where we can focus attention to save even more lives. The Abortion Cartel is desperate and fighting back, but we have been equipped with the information, tools, and conditions we need to finally move on to victory.”
Published with permission from Operation Rescue.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-11--How priests bungle the miracle of loaves and fishes by calling it ‘sharing’

January 10 , 2020 ( The Catholic Thing ) — To call something a miracle is , literally , to say only that it is marvelous , astounding .
Think of the Spanish word , mirar , which has the same root .
Look , see , and marvel !
Many natural events are marvelous : an eclipse , or that a bumblebee can fly .
And many human inventions are marvelous too , such as an iPhone , or that a 200-ton jetliner can fly .
These are all miracles in a very loose sense of the word .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and moral natures are capable of some fairly marvelous feats .
Quantum mechanics is astounding , as is Mozart ’ s music , as also was the scaling of Point du Hoc by American commandos in the Normandy invasion .
We think Oskar Schindler was amazing for saving Jews during the Nazi persecution ( and he was ) .
Basically , anything one would want to make a movie about has to be amazing ( even Sriracha sauce ) .
But , again , to call any of these achievements “ miracles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of speaking .
Next to a real miracle they look pretty lame .
What is a real miracle ?
In the strict sense , in a precise sense , a miracle is a change that requires creation or annihilation .
Only God can create and annihilate .
Therefore , any work that requires creation implies the finger of God .
That is why Jesus called his miracles “ signs.
” They revealed his divine nature .
But it wasn ’ t only that “ God was with him.
” He didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked a miracle for him .
Rather , at his very command the miracle took place .
And only God can do that .
That is why the faith of the centurion was so impressive ( Mt 8:8 ) .
He trusted that Jesus by his mere word could heal his servant .
Perhaps you ’ ve noticed that it ’ s no part of the correct definition of a miracle that it be marvelous , in the sense of visibly astounding .
Every act of consecration at a Mass involves a miracle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centurion ’ s words as our own before Holy Communion ( and it ’ s good to use a more literal form , as in the most recent translation of the Mass ) .
We are confessing with him that the Lord by his very word , through the agency of the priest , can work a miracle .
But it ’ s not a visible miracle .
That it ’ s not visible is actually part of the miracle .
The sins of the paralytic lowered down through the roof were forgiven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was the “ more difficult ” miracle , the Lord said .
But as a concession , to give a sign that this better miracle had taken place , Jesus made him able to walk ( Mk 2:1–12 ) .
Perhaps you ’ ve also noticed also that a true miracle need not be rare .
( Although you might say that Catholics make the miracle of forgiveness of sins in the confessional far more rare than it should be . )
The multiplication of the loaves and fishes is debased when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laity in their wanderings , describe it solely as a sharing , inspired by Jesus .
Sharing is not even astounding in the loose sense of the word “ miracle.
” People in a tough situation come together and pool their resources — not astonishing in the slightest .
The modern sharing interpretation involves a gross misreading of Scripture , in four crucial respects .
First , the gospel writers specify that the crowd ate the food that was set before them by Jesus , not some other food , and not their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it : the crowd took as much as they wanted precisely from the loaves and fish that Jesus gave them ( 6:11 ) .
Second , the miracle involved creation because , as if to prove that very point , the morsels left over from the feeding amounted to even more than what was given at the beginning .
It is understood that that would have fit into a single basket , and yet the disciples collected twelve baskets of morsels ( Mk 6:43 ) .
These morsels are explicitly described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and beyond what was needed ) from what was given to them by Jesus ( Jn 6:12 ) , not leftovers from their own food or someone else ’ s food .
It ’ s very important for the story that superabundance be attributed precisely to Our Lord ’ s nourishment .
Third , the sharing interpretation fails to explain why the people believed that Jesus had revealed Himself to be another Moses and reacted by wanting to make him king .
Despite what partisans of Obama or Bernie might imagine , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as kings because they inspire us to share .
And Moses didn ’ t inspire sharing .
He called down manna from heaven , which appeared anew every morning as a gratuitous gift .
The people knew a true miracle when they saw it .
Fourth , and perhaps most importantly , the sharing interpretation is completely at odds with Our Lord ’ s own interpretation of the event .
Although the miracle did involve ordinary bread and fish , he chastised the people for interpreting the event as about physical food ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it as a sign of something else .
Of what ?
Of the true bread , which comes down from heaven , which is such that anyone who eats it never dies ( 6:50 ) .
This was His own flesh and blood , he said ( 6:53 ) .
Nothing can be clearer for us today than that Jesus , in saying this strange thing , was referring to the Eucharist , which the Church has reflected on for 2,000 years and is offered us in each Mass .
What can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a holy priest of Jesus Christ — who is about to work a miracle of turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Lord , to offer to the Lord ’ s followers , to give them the gift of life — who reads the Gospel passage about the loaves and fishes to his congregation and then neglects completely to discuss the real miracle ?
Ignoring the very purpose of his life , he tells us it ’ s about filling our bellies .
Published with permission from The @ @ @

January 10, 2020 (The Catholic Thing) — To call something a miracle is, literally, to say only that it is marvelous, astounding. Think of the Spanish word, mirar, which has the same root. Look, see, and marvel! Many natural events are marvelous: an eclipse, or that a bumblebee can fly. And many human inventions are marvelous too, such as an iPhone, or that a 200-ton jetliner can fly. These are all miracles in a very loose sense of the word.
Human beings in our artistic, intellectual, and moral natures are capable of some fairly marvelous feats. Quantum mechanics is astounding, as is Mozart’s music, as also was the scaling of Point du Hoc by American commandos in the Normandy invasion. We think Oskar Schindler was amazing for saving Jews during the Nazi persecution (and he was). Basically, anything one would want to make a movie about has to be amazing (even Sriracha sauce).
But, again, to call any of these achievements “miracles” would be a very loose way of speaking. Next to a real miracle they look pretty lame.
What is a real miracle? In the strict sense, in a precise sense, a miracle is a change that requires creation or annihilation. Only God can create and annihilate. Therefore, any work that requires creation implies the finger of God. That is why Jesus called his miracles “signs.” They revealed his divine nature. But it wasn’t only that “God was with him.” He didn’t merely pray to God, and God worked a miracle for him. Rather, at his very command the miracle took place. And only God can do that. That is why the faith of the centurion was so impressive (Mt 8:8). He trusted that Jesus by his mere word could heal his servant.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that it’s no part of the correct definition of a miracle that it be marvelous, in the sense of visibly astounding. Every act of consecration at a Mass involves a miracle. That is why we take the centurion’s words as our own before Holy Communion (and it’s good to use a more literal form, as in the most recent translation of the Mass). We are confessing with him that the Lord by his very word, through the agency of the priest, can work a miracle. But it’s not a visible miracle. That it’s not visible is actually part of the miracle.
The sins of the paralytic lowered down through the roof were forgiven. That too was not visible. It was the “more difficult” miracle, the Lord said. But as a concession, to give a sign that this better miracle had taken place, Jesus made him able to walk (Mk 2:1–12).
Perhaps you’ve also noticed also that a true miracle need not be rare. (Although you might say that Catholics make the miracle of forgiveness of sins in the confessional far more rare than it should be.)
The multiplication of the loaves and fishes is debased when clerics, in their homilies, or laity in their wanderings, describe it solely as a sharing, inspired by Jesus. Sharing is not even astounding in the loose sense of the word “miracle.” People in a tough situation come together and pool their resources — not astonishing in the slightest.
The modern sharing interpretation involves a gross misreading of Scripture, in four crucial respects. First, the gospel writers specify that the crowd ate the food that was set before them by Jesus, not some other food, and not their own food. John is very clear about it: the crowd took as much as they wanted precisely from the loaves and fish that Jesus gave them (6:11).
Second, the miracle involved creation because, as if to prove that very point, the morsels left over from the feeding amounted to even more than what was given at the beginning. It is understood that that would have fit into a single basket, and yet the disciples collected twelve baskets of morsels (Mk 6:43). These morsels are explicitly described as those left over (literally, above and beyond what was needed) from what was given to them by Jesus (Jn 6:12), not leftovers from their own food or someone else’s food. It’s very important for the story that superabundance be attributed precisely to Our Lord’s nourishment.
Third, the sharing interpretation fails to explain why the people believed that Jesus had revealed Himself to be another Moses and reacted by wanting to make him king. Despite what partisans of Obama or Bernie might imagine, we don’t want to crown people as kings because they inspire us to share. And Moses didn’t inspire sharing. He called down manna from heaven, which appeared anew every morning as a gratuitous gift. The people knew a true miracle when they saw it.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the sharing interpretation is completely at odds with Our Lord’s own interpretation of the event. Although the miracle did involve ordinary bread and fish, he chastised the people for interpreting the event as about physical food (Jn 6:26). He insisted he did it as a sign of something else. Of what? Of the true bread, which comes down from heaven, which is such that anyone who eats it never dies (6:50). This was His own flesh and blood, he said (6:53).
Nothing can be clearer for us today than that Jesus, in saying this strange thing, was referring to the Eucharist, which the Church has reflected on for 2,000 years and is offered us in each Mass.
What can one say about the blindness or dullness of a holy priest of Jesus Christ — who is about to work a miracle of turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Lord, to offer to the Lord’s followers, to give them the gift of life — who reads the Gospel passage about the loaves and fishes to his congregation and then neglects completely to discuss the real miracle?
Ignoring the very purpose of his life, he tells us it’s about filling our bellies.
Published with permission from The Catholic Thing.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-11--Cdl Burke dismisses new catechism edition: 1990s catechism will remain ‘authoritative’

LA CROSSE , Wisconsin , January 10 , 2019 ( LifeSiteNews ) ― An American cardinal has stated that a new edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will not have the same authority as the original promulgated by St. Pope John Paul II .
In a December interview with The Wanderer , published in two parts this week , Cardinal Raymond Burke responded to questions regarding a “ soon-to-be-published volume entitled Catechism of the Catholic Church with Theological Commentary.
” Of particular interest to the cardinal ’ s interviewer , Don Fier , was the authority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Catechism will not have the authority of the text that was approved for promulgation in 1994 , which will continue to be the authoritative text , ” Burke declared .
“ Whatever commentary ( editor ) Archbishop ( Rino ) Fisichella and other contributors offer in the new volume will have the worth of their fidelity to the unchanging doctrine of the Church , ” the cardinal continued .
“ This is not some new Catechism of the Catholic Church and should not be viewed as such.
” The cardinal added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official English-language Catechism promulgated in 1994 and underscored that authority is inextricably linked to the authentic teaching of the Church .
“ Once again , I emphasize that whatever authority the new edition has will depend on the correctness of its fidelity to doctrine , ” Burke said .
During the interview , the cardinal also recommended a study of the authoritative Catechism in order to be truly transformed by Christ , not merely experience “ good feelings.
” “ Right now , typical of a modernist approach , it is all sentimentality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good feelings ’ about how they are living and about the Church , ” he told his interviewer .
“ But it is not a question about good feelings ; it is a question about truth and love .
We need to return to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , study it deeply , and conform our lives to what it teaches , ” he continued .
“ In this way , our lives will be truly transformed by Christ Himself because the knowledge of Christ is not something that is abstract.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perennial teaching of the Church , found in the Catechism , not the theological opinions of a pope , that must be Catholics ’ “ point of reference.
” “ The only answer in the situation in which we find ourselves at present is to fall back on the constant teaching of the Church , which is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the official magisterial teaching of the Church , ” he told his interviewer .
“ That has to be our point of reference .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the laity — and they must have recourse to it.
” Burke gave as his example the Arian Crisis : “ ...
When the Arian heresy was rampant , and the heretical element was seemingly going to prevail because the majority of Catholics had become Arians , it was by the heroic insistence on what the Church had always taught about the two natures and one divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the truth prevailed , ” the cardinal explained .
He noted that St. Athanasius in particular suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The saint was exiled and even excommunicated by Pope Liberius for the politically-motivated “ sake of peace.
” “ St .
Athanasius accepted all the suffering inflicted upon him and remained steadfast in fighting for the truth .
That is precisely what needs to happen again today , ” Burke declared .
“ Faithful priests and members of the laity must be prepared.
” He had impatient words for the concept of a “ Pope Francis magisterium ” that sweeps away perennial doctrine .
“ Recently , I talked to two young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with third young priest who was studying moral theology , ” Burke recounted .
“ He said to them : ‘ We have Pope Francis ’ magisterium that is completely new ; we now have to abandon all the old categories and develop a new theology to match this magisterium , ’ ” the cardinal continued .
“ This is simply preposterous — this is not the magisterium !
Priests and the lay faithful must understand this.
” The revised theological commentary for the new edition of the Catechism will contain novel teachings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the condemnation of capital punishment as “ intrinsically evil ” and “ against the Gospel.
” In the online edition , a change to paragraph 2267 has already been made .
It now reads : The new concept of “ ecological sin ” is also expected to be propounded in the new edition .
In a speech he gave to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome , Pope Francis said , “ We have to introduce ― we are thinking about it ― to the Catechism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecology , the 'ecological sin ' against our common home , because a duty is at stake.
” According to the new volume ’ s editor , Archbishop Fisichella , Pope Francis has written the preface to this new edition himself .
Fisichella is the first president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization , a post he received in 2010 .
This role followed a short stint ( between 2008 and 2010 ) as a controversial president of the Pontifical Academy for Life .
During his tenure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brazil by criticizing the bishop who excommunicated the abortionists and everyone else who encouraged the procedure on the unusually young mother .
He has served as president of the International Council for Catechesis since 2013 .
In a 2019 interview with America magazine , Fisichella himself emphasized that the Theological Commentary is not itself a work of Magisterium and that each of the 42 commentators “ takes personal responsibility for his or her own contribution.
” The commentators included such left-wing luminaries as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn , whose commitment to women ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other innovations are well documented .
Different dates are often given for the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by St. Pope John Paul II .
He approved the original text in 1992 , but there was a delay regarding the English translation , and thus it was not approved until 1994 .
The official Latin edition was promulgated in 1997 .

The faithful cardinal emphasized that references to a new Pope Francis magisterium are 'simply preposterous — this is not the magisterium! Priests and the lay faithful must understand this.'
LA CROSSE, Wisconsin, January 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― An American cardinal has stated that a new edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will not have the same authority as the original promulgated by St. Pope John Paul II.
In a December interview with The Wanderer, published in two parts this week, Cardinal Raymond Burke responded to questions regarding a “soon-to-be-published volume entitled Catechism of the Catholic Church with Theological Commentary.” Of particular interest to the cardinal’s interviewer, Don Fier, was the authority of the new text.
“This new issue of the Catechism will not have the authority of the text that was approved for promulgation in 1994, which will continue to be the authoritative text,” Burke declared.
“Whatever commentary (editor) Archbishop (Rino) Fisichella and other contributors offer in the new volume will have the worth of their fidelity to the unchanging doctrine of the Church,” the cardinal continued.
“This is not some new Catechism of the Catholic Church and should not be viewed as such.”
The cardinal added that he asks people to study the official English-language Catechism promulgated in 1994 and underscored that authority is inextricably linked to the authentic teaching of the Church.
“Once again, I emphasize that whatever authority the new edition has will depend on the correctness of its fidelity to doctrine,” Burke said.
During the interview, the cardinal also recommended a study of the authoritative Catechism in order to be truly transformed by Christ, not merely experience “good feelings.”
“Right now, typical of a modernist approach, it is all sentimentality, of people wanting to have ‘good feelings’ about how they are living and about the Church,” he told his interviewer.
“But it is not a question about good feelings; it is a question about truth and love. We need to return to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, study it deeply, and conform our lives to what it teaches,” he continued.
“In this way, our lives will be truly transformed by Christ Himself because the knowledge of Christ is not something that is abstract.”
The Cardinal underscored that it is the perennial teaching of the Church, found in the Catechism, not the theological opinions of a pope, that must be Catholics’ “point of reference.”
“The only answer in the situation in which we find ourselves at present is to fall back on the constant teaching of the Church, which is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the official magisterial teaching of the Church,” he told his interviewer.
“That has to be our point of reference. It is available to good priests and faithful members of the laity — and they must have recourse to it.”
Burke gave as his example the Arian Crisis:
“ … When the Arian heresy was rampant, and the heretical element was seemingly going to prevail because the majority of Catholics had become Arians, it was by the heroic insistence on what the Church had always taught about the two natures and one divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the truth prevailed,” the cardinal explained.
He noted that St. Athanasius in particular suffered in this struggle to keep the faith. The saint was exiled and even excommunicated by Pope Liberius for the politically-motivated “sake of peace.”
“St. Athanasius accepted all the suffering inflicted upon him and remained steadfast in fighting for the truth. That is precisely what needs to happen again today,” Burke declared. “Faithful priests and members of the laity must be prepared.”
He had impatient words for the concept of a “Pope Francis magisterium” that sweeps away perennial doctrine.
“Recently, I talked to two young priests who conveyed a conversation they had with third young priest who was studying moral theology,” Burke recounted.
“He said to them: ‘We have Pope Francis’ magisterium that is completely new; we now have to abandon all the old categories and develop a new theology to match this magisterium,’” the cardinal continued.
“This is simply preposterous — this is not the magisterium! Priests and the lay faithful must understand this.”
The revised theological commentary for the new edition of the Catechism will contain novel teachings proposed by Pope Francis, such as the condemnation of capital punishment as “intrinsically evil” and “against the Gospel.” In the online edition, a change to paragraph 2267 has already been made. It now reads:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and the Catholic Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide. (CCC, 2267)
The new concept of “ecological sin” is also expected to be propounded in the new edition. In a speech he gave to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome, Pope Francis said, “We have to introduce ― we are thinking about it ― to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the 'ecological sin' against our common home, because a duty is at stake.”
According to the new volume’s editor, Archbishop Fisichella, Pope Francis has written the preface to this new edition himself.
Fisichella is the first president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, a post he received in 2010. This role followed a short stint (between 2008 and 2010) as a controversial president of the Pontifical Academy for Life. During his tenure, Fisichella responded to a notorious abortion case in Brazil by criticizing the bishop who excommunicated the abortionists and everyone else who encouraged the procedure on the unusually young mother. He has served as president of the International Council for Catechesis since 2013.
In a 2019 interview with America magazine, Fisichella himself emphasized that the Theological Commentary is not itself a work of Magisterium and that each of the 42 commentators “takes personal responsibility for his or her own contribution.” The commentators included such left-wing luminaries as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, whose commitment to women’s ordination, blessings for same-sex couples, and other innovations are well documented.
Different dates are often given for the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by St. Pope John Paul II. He approved the original text in 1992, but there was a delay regarding the English translation, and thus it was not approved until 1994. The official Latin edition was promulgated in 1997.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-10--Vice falsely claims born-alive abortions just a Trump ‘misinformation campaign’

January 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — As America prepares to vote whether to keep or replace President Donald Trump in less than a year , left-wing media are attempting to delegitimize some of the incumbent ’ s most potent arguments , such as the current legislative stalemate over anti-infanticide legislation .
This week , Vice “ reproductive rights ” staff writer Marie Solis claimed that the specter of live-birth abortions is an “ unfounded myth ” that Trump and his pro-life allies will deploy as their “ go-to abortion lie in 2020.
” “ In reality , only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the 21-week mark — 66 percent occur in the first eight weeks , and 92 percent occur by week 13 , ” Solis wrote , citing 2013 Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) numbers .
“ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , there have been 143 recorded deaths associated with infants who resulted from an attempted abortion between 2003 and 2014 , and many states have reported zero live births out of thousands of abortion procedures.
” “ Advocates say the bill could make it so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resuscitate infants unlikely to survive for more than a few hours could face felony charges , ” she continued .
“ They also worry that those potential legal repercussions would force providers to go against some patients ’ wishes that a newborn with a terminal diagnosis receive palliative care rather than undergo futile medical intervention.
” The piece does not offer reasons to believe that either possibility is likely .
Several former abortion industry insiders and policy scholars have told Congress that many cases of infanticide are not captured by the official numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and multiple witnesses who have come forward and admitted that they saw babies either actively or passively killed after they survived an abortion , ” retired OB/GYN and former abortionist Dr. Kathi Aultman testified last September .
“ In Florida , a woman who had laminaria placed in her cervix to dilate it returned for her procedure , but the doctor was late , and she delivered a live baby girl at 23 weeks .
A clinic owner with no medical experience snipped the cord and placed the still living baby and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains were found by police a week later after several calls from an informer.
” Tessa Longbons , a Charlotte Lozier research associate , also testified that CDC data found 143 infant deaths from 2003 to 2014 that had been coded as induced abortion or spontaneous miscarriage .
The data “ may be a considerable undercount , ” as just seven states ( Arizona , Florida , Indiana , Michigan , Minnesota , Oklahoma , and Texas ) have provided data on at least 160 babies to survive abortions .
Further , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survivors are simultaneously pushing legislation to obtain a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of how frequent failed abortions really are , by requiring states to report any occurences of a child being delivered alive after an attempted abortion .
The deficiencies of abortion data have long been recognized as a problem in this and other abortion-related policy debates .
The CDC admits that it collects only abortion data voluntarily submitted by states , whose reporting requirements ( if they have any ) vary significantly .
California , Maryland , and New Hampshire — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit no data whatsoever , further limiting the public ’ s and policymakers ’ understanding of just how common late-term abortions and abortion complications are .
The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute adds that only 43 states “ report gestational age with enough granularity to allow for a count of late-term abortions.
” Regardless of how frequently babies survive abortions , the fact remains that even PolitiFact has acknowleged that the existing federal laws on the subject , the Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act of 1974 and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for withholding medical treatment from newborns , something pro-lifers want to rectify via the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act .

The suggestion that babies are never born alive after a failed abortion attempt is wrong, according to several experts.
January 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — As America prepares to vote whether to keep or replace President Donald Trump in less than a year, left-wing media are attempting to delegitimize some of the incumbent’s most potent arguments, such as the current legislative stalemate over anti-infanticide legislation.
This week, Vice “reproductive rights” staff writer Marie Solis claimed that the specter of live-birth abortions is an “unfounded myth” that Trump and his pro-life allies will deploy as their “go-to abortion lie in 2020.”
“In reality, only 1.2 percent of abortions occur at or after the 21-week mark — 66 percent occur in the first eight weeks, and 92 percent occur by week 13,” Solis wrote, citing 2013 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) numbers. “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been 143 recorded deaths associated with infants who resulted from an attempted abortion between 2003 and 2014, and many states have reported zero live births out of thousands of abortion procedures.”
“Advocates say the bill could make it so that providers who don’t try to resuscitate infants unlikely to survive for more than a few hours could face felony charges,” she continued. “They also worry that those potential legal repercussions would force providers to go against some patients’ wishes that a newborn with a terminal diagnosis receive palliative care rather than undergo futile medical intervention.” The piece does not offer reasons to believe that either possibility is likely.
Several former abortion industry insiders and policy scholars have told Congress that many cases of infanticide are not captured by the official numbers.
“There have been many cases and multiple witnesses who have come forward and admitted that they saw babies either actively or passively killed after they survived an abortion,” retired OB/GYN and former abortionist Dr. Kathi Aultman testified last September. “In Florida, a woman who had laminaria placed in her cervix to dilate it returned for her procedure, but the doctor was late, and she delivered a live baby girl at 23 weeks. A clinic owner with no medical experience snipped the cord and placed the still living baby and the placenta in a biohazard bag. The remains were found by police a week later after several calls from an informer.”
Tessa Longbons, a Charlotte Lozier research associate, also testified that CDC data found 143 infant deaths from 2003 to 2014 that had been coded as induced abortion or spontaneous miscarriage. The data “may be a considerable undercount,” as just seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas) have provided data on at least 160 babies to survive abortions.
Further, the lawmakers pushing to mandate care for abortion survivors are simultaneously pushing legislation to obtain a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of how frequent failed abortions really are, by requiring states to report any occurences of a child being delivered alive after an attempted abortion.
The deficiencies of abortion data have long been recognized as a problem in this and other abortion-related policy debates. The CDC admits that it collects only abortion data voluntarily submitted by states, whose reporting requirements (if they have any) vary significantly. California, Maryland, and New Hampshire — three populous, relatively abortion-friendly states — submit no data whatsoever, further limiting the public’s and policymakers’ understanding of just how common late-term abortions and abortion complications are.
The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute adds that only 43 states “report gestational age with enough granularity to allow for a count of late-term abortions.”
Regardless of how frequently babies survive abortions, the fact remains that even PolitiFact has acknowleged that the existing federal laws on the subject, the Child Abuse Prevention & Treatment Act of 1974 and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, do not contain criminal penalties for withholding medical treatment from newborns, something pro-lifers want to rectify via the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-10--Crime stats debunk claims of ‘trans murder epidemic,’ Tucker Carlson says

January 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Contrary to left-wing dogma , gender-confused Americans are actually less likely to be murder victims than the public at large , Fox News host Tucker Carlson argued Thursday .
During his evening broadcast , Carlson discussed claims by Democrat presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg , as well as the LGBT lobbying group Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) , that America is currently experiencing an “ epidemic ” of anti-trans violence .
“ That means it ’ s time to see the numbers behind these claims , the ones Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention , ” Carlson said .
“ According to the Human Rights Campaign , in 2018 a total of 26 transgendered Americans were murdered .
That ’ s 26 too many , of course .
Every murder is a tragedy , very much including these .
But does 26 constitute an epidemic ?
” “ Let ’ s break it down .
A few years ago , the Williams Institute estimated that 1.4 million American adults identify as transgender , ” he continued .
“ If that figure is correct , then in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 1.8 per 100,000.
” “ While granting that every murder is too many , relatively speaking , that is a very low rate , ” Carlson argued , noting that comparisons to the overall U.S. murder rate of 4.9 per 100,000 means the gender-confused are actually “ safer than your typical American.
” HRC ’ s list of 26 “ anti-transgender ” murders acknowledges that there were no suspects in at least two of the cases ( meaning the motive is unconfirmed ) and is vague about the details of several others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Chad Felix Greene detailed how pro-LGBT media misrepresented three 2019 murders of transgender individuals as examples of “ transphobic ” violence when in fact the evidence indicates they were killed for unrelated reasons .

January 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Contrary to left-wing dogma, gender-confused Americans are actually less likely to be murder victims than the public at large, Fox News host Tucker Carlson argued Thursday.
During his evening broadcast, Carlson discussed claims by Democrat presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, as well as the LGBT lobbying group Human Rights Campaign (HRC), that America is currently experiencing an “epidemic” of anti-trans violence.
“That means it’s time to see the numbers behind these claims, the ones Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren didn’t mention,” Carlson said. “According to the Human Rights Campaign, in 2018 a total of 26 transgendered Americans were murdered. That’s 26 too many, of course. Every murder is a tragedy, very much including these. But does 26 constitute an epidemic?”
“Let’s break it down. A few years ago, the Williams Institute estimated that 1.4 million American adults identify as transgender,” he continued. “If that figure is correct, then in 2018 the murder rate for transgendered people was 1.8 per 100,000.”
“While granting that every murder is too many, relatively speaking, that is a very low rate,” Carlson argued, noting that comparisons to the overall U.S. murder rate of 4.9 per 100,000 means the gender-confused are actually “safer than your typical American.”
HRC’s list of 26 “anti-transgender” murders acknowledges that there were no suspects in at least two of the cases (meaning the motive is unconfirmed) and is vague about the details of several others.
Last May, The Federalist’s Chad Felix Greene detailed how pro-LGBT media misrepresented three 2019 murders of transgender individuals as examples of “transphobic” violence when in fact the evidence indicates they were killed for unrelated reasons.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-10--Newly released 60-page report details US bishop’s predatory sexual behavior, reckless spending

WHEELING , West Virginia , January 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A recently released report concerning the misconduct of former Wheeling-Charleston Diocese Bishop Michael Bransfield reveals instances of predatory sexual behavior against seminarians and young priests as well as the reckless misuse of diocesan funds to finance his lavish lifestyle .
Published online Dec. 23 by the The Washington Post , the 60-page “ privileged and confidential ” investigative report – produced at a reported cost of $ 500,000 to the beleaguered diocese – pulls back the curtain not only on the out-of-control prelate but on a dysfunctional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from Bransfield ’ s behaviors , enabling him to treat diocesan funds as a personal piggy bank and “ to operate the chancery as his personal fiefdom.
” Chief among the findings reported by the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder , which spearheaded the investigation on behalf of Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori , who served as apostolic administrator after the disgraced Bransfield ’ s 2018 resignation : • Bishop Bransfield subjected multiple seminarians and priests to unwanted sexual overtures , sexual harassment and sexual contact .
Numerous witnesses reported classic “ grooming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included inserting sexual subjects into conversation ; bestowing cash and other gifts and favors upon young men in whom he was interested ; bringing victims into his confidence and trust by sharing sensitive Church matters with young seminarians and priests ; and initiating touching that began as hugs or touches to the face , and if he was not rebuffed , escalated to increasingly sexualized touching .
None of these behaviors were either welcomed or encouraged by the victims , which had a profound negative psychological effect on them .
• Despite witnessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over several years , none of the vicars took action to address Bishop Bransfield ’ s behavior .
The vicar general and judicial vicar , in particular , acknowledged that they were aware of Bishop Bransfield ’ s tendencies and sexual harassment but took no steps to prevent it based on a combination of fear and loyalty toward the bishop .
• No conclusive evidence was found that Bishop Bransfield committed sexual misconduct with minors .
Several troubling incidents , however , were reported that cause concern that the bishop may also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Bishop Bransfield ’ s abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs likely contributed to his harassing and abusive behavior .
Although Bishop Bransfield ’ s sexual harassment and intimidation occurred both during the day and night , multiple instances of abuse were reported when the bishop was heavily intoxicated and/or under the influence of prescription pain medication .
• Principles of corporate governance were not followed during the period Bishop Bransfield was bishop , which allowed him to spend the diocese ’ s money as he saw fit without any meaningful review or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council or the boards of the various entities controlled by the diocese , ( all of whom deferred routinely to Bishop Bransfield ’ s wishes as to how diocese funds would be utilized ) .
• During the period of his episcopacy , the operating expenses of the diocese exceeded its income by $ 187 million , causing the bishop to draw from the diocese ’ s endowment and mineral rights account to make up the deficit and pay for various projects initiated by the bishop .
Bishop Bransfield exhibited a pattern of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own without regard to need or whether the diocese could afford a particular project .
• Bishop Bransfield adopted an extravagant and lavish lifestyle that was in stark contrast to the faithful he served and was for his own personal benefit .
The bishop traveled frequently , almost exclusively by first class airfare or private jet .
He spent large sums on gifts , flowers and alcohol , and authorized the renovation of his personal residences at unreasonably high cost.
” In response to the report ’ s findings , Archbishop Lori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vicar Kevin Quirk , and Vicar for Clergy Anthony Cincinnati from their positions .
In their testimony to the investigative team , the trio made stunning statements revealing how and why Bransfield was able to last so long as head of the diocese .
Annie -- who essentially served as second in command , overseeing the diocese ’ s day-to-day operations – excused his non-intervention concerning the bishop ’ s predatory sexual behavior , intimating that the young men accosted by Bransfield were adults who could make their own choices , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ everyone knew ( Bishop ) Bransfield ’ s inclinations.
” Annie also reasoned that if had filed a complaint against Bransfield with the papal nuncio , it would have been a “ career-ending ” move for him .
The vicar for priests told the investigators that the several handsome young priest-secretaries who served closely under Bransfield “ were broken by the experience , ” a phenomena he witnessed , but took no action to address , nor made any outreach to the young men affected by the bishop .
Perhaps more outrageous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priests we interviewed who were affected by Bishop Bransfield ’ s conduct viewed the vicar for clergy as someone they could go to with reports of harassment and abuse by the bishop.
” Bransfield ’ s obsession with seminarians and young priests extended to male altar servers and boys receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation The judicial vicar and one other person interviewed “ described Bishop Bransfield ’ s conduct toward altar servers who served in the cathedral in Wheeling as “ predatory.
” One stated that he observed Bishop Bransfield grooming certain altar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and physical contact with them week by week … and he told the delegate for administrative affairs that he believed parents should be warned against having their children serve as altar servers for the bishop.
” Not surprisingly , Bishop Bransfield did not want female altar servers assisting him at Mass .
He just wanted boys .
Buried in a footnote : “ Multiple witnesses expressed concern about the bishop ’ s contact with male candidates for confirmation that they observed during confirmation ceremonies he performed .
Bishop Bransfiled would not simply lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s head but would in some cases stroke the young men ’ s cheeks in a manner that witnesses described as ‘ creepy.
’ ” The investigative report ’ s findings regarding Bransfield ’ s plundering of diocesan assets in order to support his luxurious lifestyle are mind-boggling .
A fire broke out in the bishop ’ s residence shortly after Bransfield ’ s accession in 2005 .
Despite the damage being confined to a single upstairs bathroom , Bishop Bransfield had the entire house remodeled , ultimately spending a total of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 722,000 on a second residence in Charleston .
Construction work on a third residence – Bransfield ’ s planned retirement home – was halted after his resignation , but not before more than $ 697,000 had been spent .
Expenditures for Bishop Bransfield ’ s luxurious accommodations total $ 6,036,699 , and the operating expenses for his residences averaged an additional $ 384,000 per year .
Bransfield ’ s extravagant tastes went far beyond his penchant for sumptuous accommodations .
• Fresh flowers : The bishop directed that fresh flowers be delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office .
During the period from 2014 to 2018 , the bishop spent $ 185,685 on flowers for the chancery ( $ 133,890 ) and his residence ( $ 47,795 ) .
• Jewelry : Records show that the bishop made 87 purchases at his favorite jewelry store in Washington , D.C. , charging a total of $ 61,785 .
• Liquor : During his tenure as bishop , Bransfield directed the purchase of more than $ 145,000 of liquor .
• Fine dining : Bransfield “ frequented premium Italian and steakhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 140,000 on his credit card for restaurant meals .
• Personal chef : Bransfield also employed the services of a personal chef who cooked his meals every day .
“ While it was not always clear when his travel was for diocesan business , it was evident that the vast majority of his travel was of a personal nature , sometimes with a companion whose travel expenses were covered by the DWC .
Bishop Bransfield ’ s routine vacation travel was to Florida , the Caribbean and multiple European locations including London , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in exclusive hotels.
” Before the report had been submitted , Pope Francis had already decided that Bransfield would no longer preside or participate publicly in Masses and other liturgical celebrations as priest or bishop .
In addition , he may not again reside in the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston .
The new bishop of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston , Mark Brennan , has already imposed some of the sanctions proposed in the investigative report on his predecessor , ordering Bransfield to pay back nearly $ 800,000 of the diocesan funds that he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and denying Bransfield ’ s right to be buried in a diocesan cemetery .
Bishop Brennan also informed Bransfield that he must apologize to the people he sexually harassed and for the “ severe emotional and spiritual harm his actions caused.
” The complete investigative report can be read here .

Former Wheeling-Charleston Bishop Michael Bransfield squandered millions and groomed seminarians -- and no one said anything about it.
WHEELING, West Virginia, January 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A recently released report concerning the misconduct of former Wheeling-Charleston Diocese Bishop Michael Bransfield reveals instances of predatory sexual behavior against seminarians and young priests as well as the reckless misuse of diocesan funds to finance his lavish lifestyle.
Published online Dec. 23 by the The Washington Post, the 60-page “privileged and confidential” investigative report – produced at a reported cost of $500,000 to the beleaguered diocese – pulls back the curtain not only on the out-of-control prelate but on a dysfunctional chancery where senior staff turned their eyes away from Bransfield’s behaviors, enabling him to treat diocesan funds as a personal piggy bank and “to operate the chancery as his personal fiefdom.”
Chief among the findings reported by the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder, which spearheaded the investigation on behalf of Baltimore Archbishop William E. Lori, who served as apostolic administrator after the disgraced Bransfield’s 2018 resignation:
Bishop Bransfield subjected multiple seminarians and priests to unwanted sexual overtures, sexual harassment and sexual contact. Numerous witnesses reported classic “grooming” behaviors by Bishop Bransfield, which included inserting sexual subjects into conversation; bestowing cash and other gifts and favors upon young men in whom he was interested; bringing victims into his confidence and trust by sharing sensitive Church matters with young seminarians and priests; and initiating touching that began as hugs or touches to the face, and if he was not rebuffed, escalated to increasingly sexualized touching. None of these behaviors were either welcomed or encouraged by the victims, which had a profound negative psychological effect on them.
Despite witnessing multiple instances of harassing and abusive behavior over several years, none of the vicars took action to address Bishop Bransfield’s behavior. The vicar general and judicial vicar, in particular, acknowledged that they were aware of Bishop Bransfield’s tendencies and sexual harassment but took no steps to prevent it based on a combination of fear and loyalty toward the bishop.
No conclusive evidence was found that Bishop Bransfield committed sexual misconduct with minors. Several troubling incidents, however, were reported that cause concern that the bishop may also have targeted minors, particularly altar servers.
Bishop Bransfield’s abuse of alcohol and prescription drugs likely contributed to his harassing and abusive behavior. Although Bishop Bransfield’s sexual harassment and intimidation occurred both during the day and night, multiple instances of abuse were reported when the bishop was heavily intoxicated and/or under the influence of prescription pain medication.
Principles of corporate governance were not followed during the period Bishop Bransfield was bishop, which allowed him to spend the diocese’s money as he saw fit without any meaningful review or approval from the diocese’s finance council or the boards of the various entities controlled by the diocese, (all of whom deferred routinely to Bishop Bransfield’s wishes as to how diocese funds would be utilized).
During the period of his episcopacy, the operating expenses of the diocese exceeded its income by $187 million, causing the bishop to draw from the diocese’s endowment and mineral rights account to make up the deficit and pay for various projects initiated by the bishop. Bishop Bransfield exhibited a pattern of using diocese funds as if they were his own without regard to need or whether the diocese could afford a particular project.
Bishop Bransfield adopted an extravagant and lavish lifestyle that was in stark contrast to the faithful he served and was for his own personal benefit. The bishop traveled frequently, almost exclusively by first class airfare or private jet. He spent large sums on gifts, flowers and alcohol, and authorized the renovation of his personal residences at unreasonably high cost.”
Vicars general served as enablers
In response to the report’s findings, Archbishop Lori removed Vicar General Fred Annie, Judicial Vicar Kevin Quirk, and Vicar for Clergy Anthony Cincinnati from their positions.
In their testimony to the investigative team, the trio made stunning statements revealing how and why Bransfield was able to last so long as head of the diocese.
Annie — who essentially served as second in command, overseeing the diocese’s day-to-day operations – excused his non-intervention concerning the bishop’s predatory sexual behavior, intimating that the young men accosted by Bransfield were adults who could make their own choices, and that they were not entirely innocent victims because “everyone knew (Bishop) Bransfield’s inclinations.”
Annie also reasoned that if had filed a complaint against Bransfield with the papal nuncio, it would have been a “career-ending” move for him.
The vicar for priests told the investigators that the several handsome young priest-secretaries who served closely under Bransfield “were broken by the experience,” a phenomena he witnessed, but took no action to address, nor made any outreach to the young men affected by the bishop.
Perhaps more outrageous, investigators said “none of the priests we interviewed who were affected by Bishop Bransfield’s conduct viewed the vicar for clergy as someone they could go to with reports of harassment and abuse by the bishop.”
Bransfield’s obsession with seminarians and young priests extended to male altar servers and boys receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation
The judicial vicar and one other person interviewed “described Bishop Bransfield’s conduct toward altar servers who served in the cathedral in Wheeling as “predatory.” One stated that he observed Bishop Bransfield grooming certain altar servers by increasing his level of familiarity and physical contact with them week by week … and he told the delegate for administrative affairs that he believed parents should be warned against having their children serve as altar servers for the bishop.”
Not surprisingly, Bishop Bransfield did not want female altar servers assisting him at Mass. He just wanted boys.
Buried in a footnote: “Multiple witnesses expressed concern about the bishop’s contact with male candidates for confirmation that they observed during confirmation ceremonies he performed. Bishop Bransfiled would not simply lay his hand on a young man’s head but would in some cases stroke the young men’s cheeks in a manner that witnesses described as ‘creepy.’”
Diocesan accounts were Bishop Bransfield’s private piggy bank
The investigative report’s findings regarding Bransfield’s plundering of diocesan assets in order to support his luxurious lifestyle are mind-boggling.
A fire broke out in the bishop’s residence shortly after Bransfield’s accession in 2005. Despite the damage being confined to a single upstairs bathroom, Bishop Bransfield had the entire house remodeled, ultimately spending a total of $4,617,000. He then spent more than $722,000 on a second residence in Charleston. Construction work on a third residence – Bransfield’s planned retirement home – was halted after his resignation, but not before more than $697,000 had been spent.
Expenditures for Bishop Bransfield’s luxurious accommodations total $6,036,699, and the operating expenses for his residences averaged an additional $384,000 per year.
Bransfield’s extravagant tastes went far beyond his penchant for sumptuous accommodations.
Fresh flowers: The bishop directed that fresh flowers be delivered to the chancery every day he was in office. During the period from 2014 to 2018, the bishop spent $185,685 on flowers for the chancery ($133,890) and his residence ($47,795).
Jewelry: Records show that the bishop made 87 purchases at his favorite jewelry store in Washington, D.C., charging a total of $61,785.
Liquor: During his tenure as bishop, Bransfield directed the purchase of more than $145,000 of liquor.
Fine dining: Bransfield “frequented premium Italian and steakhouse restaurants,” charging more than $140,000 on his credit card for restaurant meals.
Personal chef: Bransfield also employed the services of a personal chef who cooked his meals every day.
First class travel: Bransfield’s personal travel expenses were staggering.
“While it was not always clear when his travel was for diocesan business, it was evident that the vast majority of his travel was of a personal nature, sometimes with a companion whose travel expenses were covered by the DWC. Bishop Bransfield’s routine vacation travel was to Florida, the Caribbean and multiple European locations including London, Paris and Switzerland where he usually stayed in exclusive hotels.”
Bransfield’s travel expenses totaled $2,352,425, including:
Chartered private aircraft: $997,000
First class commercial airfares: $662,000
Rental cars: $75,000
Private car services (LimoLink): $68,000
Suspension from public ministry and restitution
Before the report had been submitted, Pope Francis had already decided that Bransfield would no longer preside or participate publicly in Masses and other liturgical celebrations as priest or bishop. In addition, he may not again reside in the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston.
The new bishop of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, Mark Brennan, has already imposed some of the sanctions proposed in the investigative report on his predecessor, ordering Bransfield to pay back nearly $800,000 of the diocesan funds that he had appropriated, cutting off his retirement benefits, and denying Bransfield’s right to be buried in a diocesan cemetery.
Bishop Brennan also informed Bransfield that he must apologize to the people he sexually harassed and for the “severe emotional and spiritual harm his actions caused.”
The complete investigative report can be read here.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-01-10--Oregon appeals court again hears case of couple fined $135k for refusing to create gay ‘wedding’ cak

Oregon appeals court again hears case of couple fined $135k for refusing to create gay ‘wedding’ cake

SALEM , Oregon , January 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Today , the Oregon Court of Appeals again heard oral arguments in the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein , former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa .
Last June , the Supreme Court of the United States vacated an earlier decision by the state court that effectively forced Aaron and Melissa out of business by penalizing them $ 135,000 for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex “ wedding.
” Their attorneys argue the Kleins should not be forced to create a government-approved message in conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The government should not be in the business of deciding whose faith is or is not acceptable , ” said Keisha Russell , Counsel to First Liberty Institute .
“ Government officials must remain neutral .
When government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable , it discriminates against people of faith.
” C. Boyden Gray , former Ambassador to the European Union , and Adam Gustafson of Boyden Gray & Associates are the lead appellate counsel for the case along with First Liberty .
Melissa said , “ We welcomed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we could not endorse all messages .
We lost everything we loved and worked so hard to build .
Our hope is that maybe someday we can , once again , reopen our bakery and serve everyone without being forced to celebrate events that conflict with our religious beliefs.
” The Supreme Court sent the case back to Oregon courts for further review in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop , Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission .
The State of Oregon ’ s Bureau of Labor and Industries ( BOLI ) found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public accommodations statute after Aaron and Melissa declined to design and create a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex “ marriage.
” In court , attorneys for the Kleins argued that BOLI ’ s Commissioner , Brad Avakian , abandoned the constitutional requirements of neutrality , tolerance , and respect when , even before their case even came before him , he spoke dismissively of the Kleins ’ religious objections .
In addition to the $ 135,000 penalty for “ emotional damages , ” BOLI issued a gag order , limiting the Kleins ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After BOLI ’ s decision , the Kleins were forced to shut down their bakery .
More information about the case can be found at KleinFacts.com .

'We welcomed and served everyone in our bakery, but we could not endorse all messages. We lost everything we loved and worked so hard to build,' said Melissa Klein.
SALEM, Oregon, January 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals again heard oral arguments in the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Last June, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated an earlier decision by the state court that effectively forced Aaron and Melissa out of business by penalizing them $135,000 for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex “wedding.”
Their attorneys argue the Kleins should not be forced to create a government-approved message in conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
“The government should not be in the business of deciding whose faith is or is not acceptable,” said Keisha Russell, Counsel to First Liberty Institute. “Government officials must remain neutral. When government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, it discriminates against people of faith.”
C. Boyden Gray, former Ambassador to the European Union, and Adam Gustafson of Boyden Gray & Associates are the lead appellate counsel for the case along with First Liberty.
Melissa said, “We welcomed and served everyone in our bakery, but we could not endorse all messages. We lost everything we loved and worked so hard to build. Our hope is that maybe someday we can, once again, reopen our bakery and serve everyone without being forced to celebrate events that conflict with our religious beliefs.”
The Supreme Court sent the case back to Oregon courts for further review in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The State of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) found that the Kleins had violated Oregon’s public accommodations statute after Aaron and Melissa declined to design and create a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex “marriage.” In court, attorneys for the Kleins argued that BOLI’s Commissioner, Brad Avakian, abandoned the constitutional requirements of neutrality, tolerance, and respect when, even before their case even came before him, he spoke dismissively of the Kleins’ religious objections.
In addition to the $135,000 penalty for “emotional damages,” BOLI issued a gag order, limiting the Kleins’ ability to talk publicly about their beliefs. After BOLI’s decision, the Kleins were forced to shut down their bakery.
More information about the case can be found at KleinFacts.com.
Share