Friday, 5 May 2017

Euthanasia







Euthanasia

 

Reading Jane Munro’s article in Newsweekly May 6, 2017 Rare win for the family at UN women’s commission,  the words which echoed strongly with me were “Language is vital to United Nations documents. Every word is scrutinised and carefully evaluated.”  Language of course is the thing which really separates us from the other created species.  Language is used to express oneself. Language is indeed vital to the human being.  Even the UN understands this.  Indeed so important is language that it is used to “normalise” anything we wish to have normalised.

 We saw this use of language and change of language and terms in the abortion issue, where timeless knowns like “baby” (image) to “cells” and “tissue”  even "foetus"(imageless) became and are now the norm  By changing language to one without image it became possible to convince society that abortion is acceptable because first trimester in utero child is only on a “bunch of cells.”  This later to lead to abortion to full term.  The slippery slope (even though some people do not like this term) was surely polished and ready to lead to more sliding by creating the new language.

This was preceded by justifying the need for contraception and the sexual revolution with new language used for this was not for the prevention of conception but nicely sanitised “birth control.” and now we reach the language of euthanasia. 

 Every talk, every paper I have read, every discussion on this topic expresses a language all of its own.  Sanitised language, “assisted suicide.” That word “assisted” so comforting to the one who is suiciding. Being assisted. Goodness that sounds good.
Euthanasia. No image here of “dignity” just the realisation that someone has suddenly gone forever. “Dosage delivery.” Hmmm what might this mean except helping someone take the prepared poisons which will ensure death. No images here. Yes we may even contrive the machinery for this "dosage delivery" so the dying one can do it alone "in privacy."  How comforting for those demanding euthanasia  to think a human being is left to die alone.  To enter into this final journey alone.

Language this marvellous aspect of the human which helps us understand and dialogue with one another is again being manipulated in order to achieve a desired effect, like the bunch of cells, (baby)  this, the intentional death of someone who is either desirous of this to happen or for the benefit of others.   
“Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons.  It is morally unacceptable” CCC2277

Of course the reason given for the need for “assisted suicide” or euthanasia (yes there is a difference) is to alleviate the suffering of the dying or ill person.  However, suffering is a part of life. And yes suffering is difficult both for the sufferer and those who must stand by and watch, (the Gethsemane watch).  However this does not mean that we have the moral freedom to alleviate it at all costs.  When we contemplate euthanasia, or the “assisted suicide” mantra we must remember that there is a stealing involved and what is stolen is stolen from God.
Euthanasia and its enthusiasts attempt (and when successful, do) to usurp God’s authority over life and life.  This we saw from the beginning and still does not bode well.  

 

Anne Lastman

 

 

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Creation







We were not present either at the first birth (some astronomical number of years ago) nor at the second birth (a mere 2000 years ago.) So for both instances we have to take others' word for what happened.
 
My understanding of Genesis and especially of the prehistory story chapters 1-3 is that it has both elements of history and of matter for/of faith.
We know that the first chapters deal with God's "verbal" utterance, (His Word) that is, He speaks and what He speaks comes into being.
 
The first part of the creation story is the "cosmic" order which is "out there" but still within His being and Word. The second part is the more personal, intimate creation who is Ha Adam/Hawah (Adam/Eve).

We also know that this part of history is the Oral tradition, that which has been passed down from generation to generation and with each succeeding generation adding their understanding of events of the past and between themselves and their God. And Accommodating the changes which befell the people.

The Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly authors each wrote and accommodated their reality into the existing story of their forefathers. The last of these named authors, priestly, wrote during the exile into Babylon and they wrote during the time when the Mesopotamian myths (Enuma Elish) were being performed during special festivals.  This narrative and performances sought to tell the story that the world was created as a place of combat between Marduk and Ti'amat and Marduk gives birth to the universe out of what remains of Ti'amat.
 
The Priestly writings sought to re tell their story and show their people that God had indeed created the universe out of love and not out of remains of combat.  That the universe is not the result of a chance happening but it exists because Yahweh wills it with love and sustains it with love.

Whilst we understand, because of the format, that the Priestly style of writing is of the liturgical genre, there is a cadence and order and symmetry to the whole of creation, which God then declares as "good" until the creation of the human being which he deems as "very good" because this creation is in the image and likeness of Himself. Of His Word.
 
Jesus spoke of having seen satan fall from the heavens (Lk10:18) so we accept that Lucifer/satan/adversary existed before the physical creation and that there was a chaos before the creation of the universe which led to the expulsion of a huge number of former angelic beings who had now apostatised.   It is implied in the first chapter of Genesis.
 
That he (Lucifer) would tempt the new creature "designed in the image and likeness of God" should not come as a surprise. This new creature would fill the vacant spaces left by the disobedient Lucifer and his followers. That the Son would enter Satan’s territory in the form of “man” and defeat him within his own ground is not surprising. God always stays with His creation.  He never abandons them.    That we were not there to see this event doesn’t make it less truthful or less real. It is part of our history both oral and written.

Indeed, I was not there when they crucified my Lord (words of song sung at Easter) except in His Loins (every human being is made up of hundreds of trillions of cells,) and the human body of Jesus was also created thus, for me this means as man, with over three hundred trillion cells which represents a cell for “everyman” since creation, and His Heart as the heart of God the Son, and, so again we have to take the words given to us. How do we know that they are truthful, that the witnesses were truthful? (Or truth filled)? We don’t!! However we take what’s given to us, passed on to us and we try and make sense of the words, of the story.   We accept that when scriptures speak about Jesus Christ/God/Spirit they speak truth. Which we then interpret and have or listen for an echo of this in our own lives and societies.
 
Should we have an interest in what happened thousands and thousands years ago? Indeed we should because what happened thousands and eons years ago forms our own individual history.  Connects us to the lived and experienced history of man and woman.

 

 

Friday, 31 March 2017

Great Sadness and a Tragedy.


A Sad and tragic scene.

 

In a recent article on one of my daily newsfeeds a story was shown of abortion activists in Argentina carrying out a mock abortion outside the Catholic Cathedral of Tucuman.

This protest on what is now known as International Women’s Day, was meant to highlight the fact that Argentina still has laws which are prolife.

It had, accompanying this protest, one of the most grotesque image I’ve ever seen in relation to abortion.

This protest depicted the Blessed Virgin Mary aborting baby Jesus.  The young female was dressed in what we know is clothing which the Mother of Jesus wears in our images of her and what appears to be a Rosary round her neck.

The simulation of the abortion (together with mock blood everywhere and inference of violence) and the laughter and mockery of those surrounding her left me with a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness.

he supposed “woman” sat with legs spread and a couple of “abortionists” pulling out and dismembering an imitation baby from her private parts. Foetal parts and blood were plainly visible all over ground.
Whilst this horror was happening there appeared laughter and photos or videotaping being taken, this of the baby Jesus being dismembered.

If you have computer here is the link but I must warn you that it is graphic and really awful and painful.


The reason I bring this to your attention is because we have some seriously sick young people in our midst and I grieve for the future of humanity if these are the kind of people leading humanity into the future.  Even as I write this my whole body shakes.  I dread the idea of post abortive girl/woman seeing this, usually after their abortion, and their reaction to what their abortion really means.

As I have said in the past on many occasions, for most people the word abortion is a word there is no image in mind. It’s only after the fact when regret and pain manifest that they go looking on the internet and come across many images which exacerbate their feelings of grief and pain.

And I continue to ask what has happened to remove the feminine from these young women?  What happened to so grotesquely change their design?  How are these women to “mother” in the future? Can they be trusted to mother?

 

I’m left in deep sorrow.

 

Sunday, 19 March 2017

Into her hands He entrusted the Future

Anne Lastman (2017)


I would like to write about something which I think is really important. In fact I got into a “serious and at times angry” discussion with this topic during the Christmas break.

I was talking to a really good friend (really prolife) and we came to an impasse over “the law” regarding abortion. Whilst I absolutely, completely, totally believe that we have some of the worst abortion laws in the world, and whilst we must try and reverse that 2008 law we have here in Victoria, Australia, and try to stop further of these laws throughout Australia. This law which in fact permits abortion to birth, even just prior to birth, so something definitely needs to be done about this. I couldn’t agree with my friend entirely about abortion and the Law.

Why? Because the Law will not protect the child for most of the time.  Occasionally perhaps, but Law can be manipulated.  What our laws says is not that the baby isn’t a human being or that it is too small to be seen as a human being but it says more than this. It says that a child has no protection at all because it is thought that if a child cannot breathe or take care of itself then it isn’t a human child and therefore doesn’t deserve the protection of the law, as even the worst of criminals are given.
This of course says further, that those disabled who need help to breathe to take care of themselves are also not human. A new infant is unable to take care of itself so therefore not human.  Where on earth have we descended to!

These types of laws say that an in utero baby is at the mercy of the bigger one involved (mother/father/ others) resulting in the child having absolutely no voice, rights, meaning as a human being. This reasoning is very flawed so the argument is fallacious and should be utterly destroyed. This is what that 2008 law says. I am reminded of the “dog in the manager attitude” I cannot have you so nobody else can. This 2008 (Victoria, Australia) law gives permission and enshrines permission for this to happen. Not implies but legally states this that a child can be legally killed. Because even if a woman cannot keep the child then it is possible (without the need to kill it) to give birth to it and adopt the baby out to someone who has desperately wanted a baby and can’t have one, rather than demand its cruel death. This is the death of another human being. If this baby was killed out of the womb the murderer would be charged with infanticide but in the womb it’s called “choice of the woman.” So perhaps this is an area where “law” can be of particular use and benefit, for the possible protection for the baby.

However, and I guess I am always interested in the “however” I don’t believe that “the law” will change anything. If we are lucky (as pro-lifers) we might be able to rescue a baby destined for death using “the law” as reason for not aborting. However, again, it is not with the law with which we can make an all‐out attack against abortion. The law is another prong to the attack but I don’t see it as a huge help in stopping or even reducing abortions.

Remember, until recently, we have had abortion laws which at the time said that abortion was a crime. It was against the law, it really should not have occurred but we all know that “the law” was never adhered to or applied. “The police should be made to enforce the law” (said my friend) ensure the law is exercised and not ignored. As it was in the past never enforced. None of us know of any doctor, nurse or woman who was jailed because of carrying out an abortion. (Perhaps that American abortionist (Kermit Gosnells serving life sentence, who butchered both women and babies is an exception) whilst the law was set in statutes it was never respected or anyone had recourse to it here in Australia.  Ways around it were found. Police turning a blind eye to the reality of what was going on in certain buildings, in certain hospitals, even in private places.

A letter written by a mental health professional which said that this abortion was required for the mental well‐being of the patient, even though he or she was not seen by the mental health professional before or after, etc. “The law” was there but it was never used to bring into question the purveyors of such dastardly thing called abortion.

So the way I see things is that while a law needs to be in place even as a backup it is NOT the law which will change the abortion culture. It’s an addendum, yes, but of itself in won’t change a culture of death. What will change this death culture? The way I see it, it is that we need to change the way we see and understand and protect women because society and women themselves have forgotten why she has been designed in a particular way. But before this, we need to understand that there is probably not a family in our human relationships which has not in some way been touched by abortion.

We need to start from this thought of earth’s population of approximately 7.5. Billion (7,500.000, 000.000, I think it’s the right number of noughts) every family somehow has been touched by or knows of the violent death of an in utero child intentionally carried out.
So what? You might say. Well I would answer that the abortion carried out on the woman and the demand by the father for the child has contributed to the change in the culture we all live in and are part of. Why life has become cheap. Why demands for other changes of the “norm” are being made. Why children are confused about who they are.

Between the wars experienced in 20th century and visually brought into living rooms, the meteoric rise of really violent movies and games, the disrespect for woman and man and sexuality via the medium of pornography, contraception and its developed mentality and the need/want/desire of women to work outside of the home, has led to babies and children becoming an optional extra, dispensable, without consideration for the emotional after effects of this developed death culture and society.

Every woman (millions of them) and man who has had an abortion is changed forever. Irrespective of the voices which say otherwise. Every woman who has undergone an abortion has had her design corrupted.

Every woman who has undergone an abortion, whether willingly or unwillingly, has registered in her inner being the reality of the violent death of her child. The violent death of part of her own being. Of having gone against her very design. Her raison d’etre.
Woman was never designed to carry cartloads, build houses, ships, aeroplanes, skyscrapers, Cathedrals or even lead a herd of cattle, even though she is capable of doing all of those things. These are external to herself. After all she is his (man’s) “helper” Yes she can do all the functional work he can.

However, her best work is something which he cannot do. Something for which her body was specifically designed. For which her emotional makeup was designed (a new mother’s breast will start leaking milk just before her baby awakes, there is an anticipation, a knowing her child will soon wake and want her to feed).   She is very much attuned to her baby. She has an intuition which is reserved for her child alone from conception and for the child’s whole of life.
A mother has a connection to her child for her entire life. She knows when all is not right with her child because her body feels it. She can’t explain it but she knows. A mother always knows when she is needed and once a mother, her own self and beliefs intrinsically change.

She can no longer think as a woman does before pregnancy and childbirth. This because a mother’s work of creation is united with God’s work. She is a branch of the vine in His vineyard “every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more” (Jn. 15:1). She is the branch which continues to bear more fruit.

And He is constantly intuitive towards His child His “helper” and helps her also be intuitive towards her child because they work together to bring forth a new creation.
She has a knowledge that she has been attached to a greater vine of grandeur, and the abortion is like a vandal or thief who has slyly snuck in and broken her little twig. The little shoot which she tenderly fed from her own self. Her own body.

Her design is such that her body is able to understand the moment of conception. Her body responds to the changes, and I’m sorry to say this but the male/spouse/partner cannot ever feel the changes because his body is designed different. He is designed to be “external,” to be out there to be the protector of her and their little “shoot.” He is there for strong things.

Her body is designed for “internal” things for inner knowing and understanding and nurturing and feeding and hearing, whilst his is designed to spark the new “twig” and then protect it. This is why it is always understood that men and women are very equal but very different. Alone neither can create, together they make a future. They are designed for particular understandings and labours. One the outer and one the inner. One without the other cannot exist. Each depends on the other for life. She draws life invisibly from him and returns it in a more visible and beautiful way, a baby made from their very essences.

Why have I laboured so much on this explanation? Because unless somehow we begin to slowly bring “woman” to understand her design and to love her design and take back her design then abortion will always be a normal as we have in the last 30‐50 years made it a
normal. Abortion will be “the answer” (in difficulties) because the woman has not understood
her value, her design, her partnership in the ongoing work in creation.

She has lost the vision and unless somehow we resurrect this vision no amount of laws will do anything to change the idea that abortion (death of a baby, a twig,  a shoot, a future) is only a small thing and then a return back to normal and to building castles.

I have heard these words thousands of times and thousands of times I have needed to explain that once there is a conception there cannot ever be a return to being a being a “maiden” there cannot ever be a return to being pre pregnant or feeling like a pre pregnant woman.

Once there is a conception even if the conception is for short time her design has been permanently changed and the thoughts about “baby of my womb” will never leave her. Even into old age when the memory of the loss actually becomes stronger. 

My precious friend who led to this discussion, next question to me was “what about those women, girls who don’t feel anything about the baby in her womb? And women who after birth can’t bond with their baby, or even women who kill their babies after birth. What about them?” what about their design? And these are good questions because all of these things actually do happen. We read about them daily in our newsfeeds, and my answer to her and here is that wherever there are these things occurring then there has been a disconnection with her own feminine self. A distancing has occurred which has left her flailing and lost to her own self.

Something has occurred which changed negatively her design. Some deep wound from which her feminine being escaped to avoid the pain and she has not ever found her way back. This is when help is deeply needed. To feel nothing for the child she is taking to be killed says to me that there has been a total disengagement so that she can proceed with what she believes she needs/has to do. This is her self‐protection against her own emotional meltdown (which of course happens later). The answer to the question of why there is at times is no bonding with one’s own child, the answer is similar. Her feminine has withdrawn so as not to become attached and be hurt. In her being there is a hint of a memory of pain as child. Of deeply un understood loss. Of loving someone so much (Mum/ Dad/other) and love not returned or perceived as not returned or gone.  Perhaps her own loss or perhaps another.

But for this mum there is a memory of pain of a child and possibly abandonment. And for the question why do some mothers murder their own children, this again has memory of pain linked to it. A memory of fear, dread, distortedness. disassociation, woundedness. A disconnection.  An abandonment and even a long endured rage. Perhaps even a jealousy. A pain so deep that her own feminine essence has gone into recess not responding or recognising her feminine being.
Perhaps even a revenge against lost love of lost feminine. This, I say, because woman’s design is such that it is to be drawn towards her infant, and indeed other infants, So when there is such an aberration then the feminine has been deeply wounded, deeply buried, even absent through never having learned, identified or known about herself as feminine. Cold detached parenting ensures cold, absent, detached feminine and thus distance from her own feminine.

Not the physical or intellectual or even perhaps some aspect of the emotional but her feminine has been deeply wounded. So wounded that she does not know how to be the feminine of her design.  She does not recognise her design. She is aghast at what she has created (her child). It’s outside of her own feminine understanding. It is alien to her. It frightens her and she wants to run from it and destroy it. This is why we at time read some horror stories about mothers killing their own children, and we are saddened and even horrified by them.

God doesn’t make mistakes in his designs, however human beings can corrupt the design. Children are designed to learn incrementally, that is, little by little, age correct, and by age correct I mean when something cannot be understood because cognitively the child is too immature for such information.   It cannot be learned at this time, so when there is a negative interruption of the natural learning sequence   an imprint of this negatively disastrous event/events are the consequences.
I started this discussion with “the law” and abortion and my understanding of abortion and why “the law” won’t really do much though it’s imperative to ensure that laws are in place to safeguard where and if possible. Indeed as part of a many pronged effort.

As I said earlier, I believe we (prolifers and people of goodwill) need to re‐educate, re tell the story of woman, to re‐educate, re tell the story of woman and help her believe that her own personal story is so magnificent as a woman. Not as a mechanical woman. Not as a woman called to do all the male tasks but as a woman who understands her design and the importance of that design. She has been entrusted with the enfleshing of love.

God has entrusted the future into her hands, into her care and for that to have happened he must have designed her with the capability of doing this work. Which is to love like He has loved and from that love to flow out another and continuous love. He trusted her. Every woman has a womb (no male has this). Every woman has built in her body the way to feed her child with nourishment she has made herself and which cannot ever be bought (no male can do this except through a bottle). This should bring woman to her knees in great awe. Not as a manager of a building site but that she can make the nourishment for her child from her very body.   Awesome.

In her book The Eternal Woman Gertrude Von Le Fort writes about motherhood “to be a mother, to feel maternally, means to turn especially to the helpless, to incline lovingly and helpfully to every small and weak thing upon the earth.” (p78). Finally, those of us who work in this prolife vineyard we need to work together to help “woman” relearn who she is. The media, the feminist movement, the funded people, the hugely funded abortion industry have done a big work of confusing “her.” Of having blinded her to who she really is.
Von Le Fort has further to say “those who devote their loving attention to these victims of our decadent society know that the wound created in their souls is so deep that only God’s grace can heal it” p 78).

We who work in this vineyard (pro‐lifers in whatever way) know that the soul of woman is deeply wounded post abortion and some work to save the baby and save the mother, and some work to heal the soul of the woman after the fact. (People like me) knowing and understanding this fact of different wound and pain.

We each in our own charisms have many on our newsletter lists we need to begin with these contacts and help them to then speak words of encouragement to those we know need to know and understand who they really are. Help those who are feeling sick unto death (Jn11:4). Our priests, pastors, bishops, even Pope, Rabbis, need to speak to women and help them understand their magnificence.

Not the necessity to be employed to make up quotas of males and female staff members, but to help in the understanding of “male” and “female” in their original design. Abortion, is the last and cruellest attack against the woman and society. Society goes the way the woman goes. Woman deeply confused and lost and wounded, society confused, lost and wounded.
The way of the family which is nursed and cherished and nurtured by woman is a visible image of society and the Church. Woman wounded, family wounded, church wounded.

Woman confused, children confused and a hatred of parents, authority, love. Again into her hands He entrusted the future. A future which can either be healthy and beautiful or slowly self‐destroying.
It won’t be easy and it is not an “instant coffee” project. It may take several generations but someone said something about journey starting with first step. We need to set out on this first step. Together we set out to heal woman, and with that humanity will also be healed because the heart of humanity (woman) is again whole. It’s not divided in grief looking and weeping like Rachael for lost children and the lost generations. (Jer. 32:15, Mt 2:18).

The focus of our awareness becomes the reality of our world said Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize winner) in 1927, and Niels Werner Heisenberg (Physicists) in The Copenhagen Experiment.
Our awareness now is limited and disjointed and unsure and unclear, and we, as pro‐lifers, will not be able to tackle and defeat this aberration called abortion unless we focus on changing this awareness to a culture of life and love and generosity. This we must do because those who demand abortion are focused, prepared, clear, funded and secure in their beliefs, so they ensure that their beliefs become the reality. We must also work with the same clear determined focus of healing, restoring woman to her beautiful design and in the meantime trying to save her and saving babies. Indeed saving babies and their mothers who will grieve after the event or if not grieve run and hide from grief through the medium of the loss of her feminine self and self-destructive behaviours.

Why run from grief? Because there is pain,  guilt, shame, regret  and the knowledge that at the core of her being that her malaise and grief continues in order  to hold the life story of the other (baby) in existence and in life. Grief can be a redeeming emotion. The knowledge that her baby was created to belong to the human family and has a place in life. So grieving maintains the life story of the child not here in existence but here in memory. Even those who profess not to feel anything about their abortion, in fact do feel and remember because even years after the event they still remember, date, time, place, gestation.

They still may be able to say “it hasn’t affected me” but indeed it has, because they still
remember and in this way maintain a connection with their baby. This is the reason why woman grieves because the life story of the other, her baby, has been destroyed and with her participation.
The new awakening and re telling of the story cannot be spoken and heard unless this story speaks of life, and we need to remember that no new story telling can be heard easily by the generations which have been nourished by the spirit of death. So the new narrators must speak first to the heart of woman who is the heart of humanity and speak in the language of the heart. The language that the woman was meant to speak and the language embedded in her being. Embedded in the mystery which is part of the team called male and female.

Saturday, 18 March 2017

Divorce Remarriage and the Eucharist


 

 
The New Testament describes how things happened and how the Spirit led the Church and reflected on the events which occurred (Dei Verbum 12).  We believe that the writings of the New Testament are inspired and a true witness to the life, teachings, death and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ, born in Nazareth just over 2000 years ago.
The governance of the Church He founded is ensured  by Jesus who promised at His departure that the Spirit would be sent and He would teach and confirm all that He (Jesus) had said,  and the Spirit would protect the Church from error so that the “gates of Hell would not prevail against it.”
(Mt: 16-19).

 Jesus indeed prepared his group of disheartened and even traumatised disciples by sharing a final meal with them. A meal in which He announced a  “New Covenant’ (Jn 13:34) and they were to continue this memorial meal till the end of time, that is, His return. “After giving thanks, he broke the bread and said: ‘This means my body which is given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me." (1 Cor:11:24)  A means of remembrance.  An anamnesis. An anamnesis which means a past event, made present, real and continuous. It’s “Type” being the Passover of the Hebrew people, the longest continuous celebration in history. 

The Eucharistic celebration for the believers in Jesus was/is to be the event celebrated through time which brings the “meal” in its authenticity to each person and at each celebration in each time, society and century.   So that every time this Eucharistic or thanksgiving meal is celebrated He is again present in their midst, his word “this is by Body this is my Blood, do this in memorial to me” crosses space and time and makes Jesus present to the person receiving it in any age, or being part of this Eucharistic celebration just as present if he/she was present at that final meal with Him and his apostles. He is still breaking bread throughout time with us.

Why did Jesus tie breaking of bread and eating for salvation? because it was in the eating “but of the tree of knowledge of good evil you are not to eat; for, on the day you eat, you will die)” (Gn2:17) that sin of disobedience and “eating which was forbidden in that moment” entered into the human being, and Jesus in His incarnation came to reverse all that which had and has followed.  Now Jesus the God/Man reverses this curse using the same medium as that which caused the sin, that is, eating, a universal necessity. “unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you have no life in you” or “whoever eats of my flesh and drinks of my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:54) Jesus leaves for all time the mandate to eat of His Flesh and drink of His blood in order to have eternal Life with Him where before eternal life had been lost.  Further, he reverses the curse of Genesis 9 “But you shall not eat flesh with its life its blood" (Gen9:4) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...for it is the blood that makes atonement. The sacrifice of shedding his blood made reparation for the sin of death by having “life in you” Seen even in the story of the death of Abel (whose blood cried out to God) for reparation. (Gen4:11-12)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, (Gn 9:4-7) and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood which makes atonement by the life. Jesus left behind both flesh and blood as atonement for all sins of generations. Flesh and blood died thus leading to death of body and spirit, now flesh and blood lead to life.  And through flesh and blood he left behind for atonement a renewed friendship with God. The sin was so great that only God (Gen.chapter 15) could repair the damage done. Through His son this was done.
Yet it would appear that Jesus was asking the disciples to do something that they were forbidden by their Jewish faith to do.  “Eat flesh with blood”. Here he is telling them to do the thing they believed they were not to do and on that day many of his followers walked sadly away (Jn 6:30, Jn 6:66, Jn 6:59-71).It was one of those sayings that could not be understood. A dark saying.

The answer to the eating of flesh and drinking of His blood was the way to reverse the sin of the first man and woman who did eat unto themselves and all the future generations, death, even after having been warned that this would happen.   In the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Jesus begins a new creation. (The first born Col. 1:15)  Not destroying the first creation but finding a way to renew them in a universal manner (eating) and the restoration of the relationship between man and his creator.
Why eat and drink? Because Jesus is able through the Spirit to transform a universal action, eating, into life giving and saving nourishment.  Different nourishment than daily food for bodily sustenance, but a nourishment for the soul which had been wounded and disfigured by the eating of what should not have been eaten. (Gn2:17). Eucharist or soul nourishment is as life-giving as was the ruach after the creation of man (breath) and now a renewal nourishment leading to reconciliation and eternity.

It’s a loving act/gift and promise he has given and left behind in time to nourish those who would walk through all ages until his return.  His presence always and every moment amongst the human being created in His own image and likeness (Gen 1:27) until his return. Again walking, talking and sitting in fellowship with him.
St Paul and the authors of the early testaments wrote and discerned that this is the food for the journey, for those starving, for those who cannot heal because of the lack of nourishment. 
The Eucharist is the food of the very “presence” of the Lord amongst the brethren. His way of being in their mist. The visible face of the Father.  Those broken, those marginalised, those outside of the “righteous ones’ who appear to have no need of this food for they already consider themselves holy (Lord I’m better than this poor man, Lk 18:9-14). But for those who are and have been starved, and have need for the food He offers.  They are already fed (by the word) but those who have been starved have a need of this particular nourishment for recovery of soul health.
  .
Jesus’ table fellowship with outcasts and sinners is well documented and it is also documented that some of his friends and enemies were outraged and horrified that he would associate with, and share table with, such known sinners (tax collectors, prostitutes, sinners, adulterers) and this by a  supposed teacher and supposed Holy man (Mk2:16-17) Matt:11:19, Lk 15:1-2, 19:18). Jesus sat at table both with the righteous ones and sinners alike.  His presence was for all.

Why this preamble?

Because I am greatly disturbed and saddened by the behaviours of certain Catholics who have in recent times almost caused a schism in the Church, and their total humiliating disrespect for the Holy Father, Pope Francis, and total disrespect for the “Chair of Peter.”  Disrespect for the “holder of the keys of the Kingdom” (Mt 16:19).Disrespect for the office of the Papacy.  There has been an all-out vendetta against the Pope forgetting that “where Peter is there is the Church”   ostensibly because of the so-called “Chapter 8” and one footnote (351) in Amoris Laetitia a document 355 pages long, in which he is accused of changing church doctrine. He even says in the beginning of this exhortation (p 12) that it should not be read “in a rushed reading of the text” and suggests that each chapter be read “patiently and carefully” This beautiful exhortation has been changed into a “chapter 8” furore instead of a very beautiful document on love and family, and indeed his Holiness says that chapter 8 should make readers feel challenged.  
Chapter 8 speaks of looking at a huge vineyard (divorced and remarried) where these couples are encouraged to understand why and how the sacrament of marriage can enrich their new marriage or new vows of love and, that they can be, much more sustained by the grace of Christ in their marriage by the possibility of “participating fully in the life of the church” (AL p 240.).  His attempt to streamline the annulment process is not an attempt to change church doctrine but to encourage those who would wish to reconcile with the Church to seek the necessary helps to achieve this. 

Further, he states ‘those who think that this is equivalent to a catholic divorce are mistaken. Marriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change.  It is doctrine. “It is an indissoluble sacrament” (AL p 68). Further, “a lukewarm attitude, and kind of relativism or undue reticence in proposing the ideal (my italics) would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel. To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal, or proposing less than what Jesus offers to human beings” (P 240.) The ideal is always to be understood, announced and preached.

This Pope invites Pastors to become involved with these abandoned individuals and lost to the church because of a difficult situation, and indeed who are not “living the ideal” and to help them to slowly understand and desire to come to the ideal. “Jesus wants a church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching always does what good she can even if in the process her shoes get soiled.” (Chap. 8 AL)   He is saying to Pastors get involved, see how you can help this wounded vineyard. Help them reach the understanding of the full ideal (Sacrament of marriage) always bearing in mind that pain exists and to be mindful of the pain. Be merciful as God is merciful. 
It’s important to remember that no one divorces because they have nothing better to do.  There are always painful reasons including, serious domestic violence, emotional and physical abuse, and other painful experiences which lead to divorce.  And Mother Church is hurting for these wounded ones.  And these critics not caring or thinking about the emotional disenfranchisement they are committing against these wounded ones.  And so these “experts” and their collection of followers continue to divide the Church and wound more deeply those already wounded.
Jesus sat at table with prostitutes. Jesus allowed himself to be touched by prostitutes. A woman freed of seven devils was on her way to touch him and anoint him in death. Jesus also sat with those righteous who would not wash his feet, (but a great sinner washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. (Lk 7:44)

This Holy Father, Pope Francis, has gone after a massive vineyard abandoned and lost to the Church, by laws, and the righteous, and he is being hounded and humiliated by dissenters fuelled by some so called “true catholic” with a Facebook page read by millions and a Cardinal (Judas who was concerned over waste of money Jn 12:4) and some theologians who haven’t heard the sound of their voices for a long time.  These are damaging the church and flock almost beyond repair, and “Peter” is publically rebuked. Indeed so much so that his Council of 9 and head of CDF His eminence Cardinal Müller   had to come out publically to say that they support the Pope and  that the his post synodal exhortation Amoris Letitia does not contravene or change church doctrine.  
I want to suggest something else to these  “defenders of the faith” including the Facebook instigator  and his followers who daily trolls the net to find negative stories about Pope Francis  “what happens to those priests, nuns, religious who have left the Catholic Church, were laicized  and married and brought up families? Are they banned from the Eucharist also? Remembering that their first covenant, their first love was with the church and with the Lord as spouse.

We are told that Bishops and priests should love the church like Christ loves the Church, as a husband loves his wife. For the priest his covenant of Holy Orders  leaves an indelible sacramental mark on the soul (like Baptism) but even so he may not exercise his priestly ministry after laicisation except  in extreme circumstances e.g. dying person, he is still “married” to  his church though daily he may not exercise his priestly duties.

How does the priest love his Church? Just like Christ loves his bride and is willing to die for her. St Paul who is mentioned and used as precedent also says the same of marriage: the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and be ready to sacrifice himself for her. So a priest or religious who is no longer a “sacramental bride/groom” may also not remarry another or it is also adultery. 

This is the mystery of love that it is meant to be a union for life for husband and wife and priest and his own spiritual bride.  For the man and woman it is a physical union for the priest/religious it is a spiritual eternal union. Both the human and the priestly vocation is a ministry of love and both are covenants of marriage. When a marriage fails it’s sad, when a religious ministry fails (priest, nuns, brothers, celibate ministries) it’s sad, but why is it that a former priest, religious can remarry in the physical union and receive Eucharist but when a human being finds happiness after usually much suffering and ill treatment, emotional torment and sometimes torture and violence, they are banned from the table of the of Lord?
God is a communion of three who live in harmony and love, and ideally this is what both human and spiritual marriage is meant to be.  One flesh. One union, harmonious. This is the ideal.   However this is not always the situation.   The priest when he becomes a priest, at consecration, also becomes one flesh with the Lord (at consecration, this is my body) and “marries” the Church, His bride. But at times this union also fails.  Just as when human marriages are entered into with good intentions but at times impediments make them eventually unworkable.

St Paul who is quoted ad nauseam by those who are determined to harm “Peter”  says that the great mystery is reflected in Christian spouses: the relationship established by Christ with the Church who is His bride.(Eph 5:21-33) This is their relationship.  Bride and groom. United in marriage. Never to separate and if this does happen, our learned commentators say that these cannot be part of the body of Christ or sit at His table? He who sat mostly with sinners and outcasts and the anawim and chose to be with them.  He the Lord of the Eucharist is told that those who are broken cannot sit with him. No attempt made to be brought into the fold?
To those who would destroy the church,( LifeSiteNews Mar 18 Canon Lawyers and theologians to hold conference on deposing the Pope) spend time reflecting upon this other “broken marriage” (laicised priests and religious) and the ramifications of the priest returning the cross to Jesus because it became too heavy, surely they should be excluded too?  If not why not?

And above all please stop trying to destroy the Church the body of Christ and Peter who is guided by the Holy Spirit and this is the promise made to “Peter” by Jesus Himself.

“Therefore we said, “Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the lord in His presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and offerings of wellbeing: so that your children may never say to our children in time to come, “you have no portion in the Lord.”  (Jos. 22:26-28).

 

 

 

 

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Scapegoating of Cardinal Pell


 

While reading Peter Westmore’s “I accuse A Travesty of justice” I couldn’t help but think of the “scapegoat phenomenon.”  This is the phenomenon where a victim will be chosen or indeed a substitute is chosen to atone for sins in lieu for the sins of the real sinners, and this victim will be seen to expiate and have atoned for the “sins” of the others. We have Jesus as the most perfect “scapegoat”

It is an interesting phenomenon because we in our enlightened society would be scandalized to think that we would use or have a “scapegoat” mentality or even think of punishing anyone other than the guilty party, but the reality is that we have recently been made privy to this phenomenon. The media in all its forms has clearly shown that someone has to “pay” for the “sins” of those offending and molesting priests of long ago.

The media in all its forms (print/visual/social) which we know even supported the victims and their supporters to travel all the way to Rome, to confront Cardinal Pell as he gave his evidence, together with Counsel for the Commission, who seemed intent on breaking down the voluntary witness (Pell) showed an intensity of fury against the witness (Pell) that one would have thought that it was he himself who was responsible for all the criminal acts committed.  That he was the criminal. That it was he who had committed all the offending acts.

 As I watched Counsel for the commission, Ms Gail Furness SC I kept being reminded of the Old Testament priest who laid his hands on the chosen “goat” and placed all the sins of the community on its head and then sent the goat out into the desert to die and so all sins of the community were expiated. (Hence scapegoat).  Is this what Ms Furness was trying to do?   Lay all past sexual abuse sins by sinful priests e.g.  Frs Risdale, Searson, Day and others laid on the head of Card. Pell and he was to take the fall for them? Goodness?  What a scalp!

 As we watched the proceedings being telecast from Rome it became obvious that truth was not the goal, but a side issue of this Royal Commission, and that the presumption guilt rather than the presumption of innocence was that which was to be proven.  The presumption of guilt overhung the whole proceedings like an unpleasant damp overcast Melbourne day, and even from thousands kilometres felt intolerable.

 Mr Peter McClellan QC Chairman of the Royal Commission also appeared to make no effort to temper the belligerence of his counsel (Furness) who was intent on proving the guilt of the Cardinal. Of showing him to be a liar and a non-caring person. From the beginning, Counsel for the commission (Furness) set out to find him guilty at least of knowing what was happening and doing nothing about it.  This was difficult to watch as the palpable hostility made it possible for anyone of goodwill to see that there was a long list of other individuals closer to the perpetrators who may have noted or seen something happening and more likely to do something about  it but it was Pell who was to be the fall guy.  Why?
Because apart from the scapegoat phenomenon in Australia we have a healthy “tall poppy syndrome” alive and well.  We will honour overseas guests and their accomplishments but our own we tend to demean. Our own must wander over the waters and then there is sense that something isn’t quite right.  

The scapegoating phenomenon can be found in all manner of situations where it seems like an injustice has been committed and no reparation done.  The “sin” has not supposedly been atoned
for and so sinner/s appear to have escaped punishment.  A “scapegoat” is chosen because of some link or association and for no other reason the denunciation, humiliation, persecution and removal from the community begins in earnest and persists until the “scapegoat” is finished, that is, dead.

 Whilst scapegoating is not a preferred term but a more modern term “witch-hunt” was used in the Pell experience I would suggest scapegoating is a more apt description because of the wave of hatred against the Cardinal and the Catholic Church,   which was incited by all forms of media and media personalities and which was also clearly demonstrated in the conduct of the members of the Royal Commission itself.

The anti-Pell saga played out before the eyes of the world and was done with the sole purpose of bringing down Cardinal Pell, to make him pay. To humiliate him, to embarrass him and the Church and to call into question his position at the Vatican.    
Someone had to pay for the sins of Ridsdale, Searson, Day, Ryan, and all the other other offending priests and the bigger the scalp the better the prize.

 

 

Sunday, 31 January 2016

Abortion and Violence

 
Victoria’s Royal Commission’s Inquiry into Domestic
Violence is very important and timely and this societal
violence needs to be stopped. Far too many children are
being murdered. Too many women. Too many men. There
is too much violence. Everywhere we turn there is one
more murder. One more stabbing. One more violent
assault. The home, the suburbs, the streets, schools, are
now a war zone.
Why?

We live in a society that is so comfortable we have it so
easy. So why so much violence? And always I go back to
loss of respect for life.
Yes indeed we have it easy. We have all the commodities
but at the cost of respect for another and above all for life.

Slowly respect for life has been eroded and this loss of
respect began with the loss of respect for the life of the
tiniest infant.

Those who cannot defend themselves. Abortion has
become “normal.” Abortion means killing another. A little
one and if we can kill a little one then as Mother Teresa
would say “if a mother can kill her own child what is left for
me to kill you and you to kill me, there is nothing between.”

Over one generation we have gone from abortion for
difficulties to abortion on demand to abortion to full term,
to infanticide. In less than 30 years. We are talking legal

death of birthed babies!!! (allowing aborted babies born
alive to die without assistance).We are talking about mothers
 taking their viable babies knowing that they would be
killed in a cruel way. We are talking about fathers taking
their sons or daughters to be killed intentionally.

And then we ask the Royal Commissioners to investigate
domestic/family violence. I wonder if the Commissioners
would ever think that an abortion could be the very start of
violence between previously happy couples.

 I wonder if the Commissioners would consider that the violence
experienced by a child in an abortion is a similar or
replicated version of violence committed during murder of
an adult. Or do they think it’s different?

We now know that there are psychological sequelae to
abortion. The woman experiences life long after effects
whilst the male is also affected but differently, generally
through his sense of impotence in the matter.

For the male who is affected it is often the sense of helplessness
at being unable to do anything to protect his child and this anger is
then turned inwards to self‐punish, by you guessed it, fighting, aggression.

Prior to the birth of the baby the father has absolutely no
rights in respect of the child. He cannot do anything to
protect the life of his child and if the mother of that child
does not want to keep, or give birth to that child then there
is no one who can prevent the abortion from happening.

No‐one, including the state, because the state has
purchased into the argument by legislating that the life of
that new individual whilst in utero is a nonentity, and
therefore dependent upon the whim of the host body.

Legislation has not decreed that the relationship between
woman and infant is symbiotic but at the same time the
infant is independent and deserving of the utmost respect.
It has in fact decreed that the life or death of that infant is
dependent upon the vagaries of the stronger of the two parties.
The violence we are daily fed through all forms of media is
symptomatic of the “just below the surface” violence within
the community. There is a tension, which must be released
and will not evaporate without leaving in its wake a disaster.

Just as we see a tension beneath the psychology of some
men and women after abortion. A tension which explodes
into violence. Both self‐harming and other harming
violence.

Perhaps an explanation (mine) of the response to abortion
may shed some light on this episode. Since the onset of the
culture of the “pill” and “me‐ism” (sexual revolution) the
woman has progressively taken control of her fertility and
her body. And indeed to be able to understand her body
and to guard and protect her body as inviolate is a good thing.

However, this is not what has happened. The woman has
demanded control over her body in as far as her fertility is
concerned, and has removed from her husband/partner
any rights and responsibility towards an act which has
esulted in a conception.

This, whilst ostensibly “good” as far as some men and
women are concerned, has ultimately failed all.
Today, whether he chooses or not, a man can walk away
from his responsibility towards a child he has engendered.

Conversely should he choose not to walk away from the
responsibility it can be forcibly wrenched from him so that
he cannot do anything to change the situation.

The removal of responsibility has not spelled equal rights,
as has been suggested, but indeed unequal suffering. The
woman suffers lifelong anguish. Yes it’s real. It happens
even for those who blithely believe that it hasn’t affected
them. The man suffers loss of something of his essence, of
his fatherhood, of his fathering. Of his manhood. He forgets
how to be man.

For the woman, in her very being there is a rupture unlike
any other. There is a grief quite unlike any other. The kind
of wrenching grief which is the result of guilt. The kind of
grief which is the result of the intent behind the loss. The
kind of grief which says, powerlessness, hopelessness,
utter despair. That is the kind of grief which abortion
leaves in its wake and is the legacy for the woman and man
(either short term or long term) who have acceded to the
abortion experience.
For the state and nation which has decreed that the killing
of its future citizens is lawful, there is to be other losses
which cannot ever be recouped. For this state or nation the
beginning of its end is in sight. Citizens begin their life as
zygotes, embryos, foetuses, babies, young ones,
adolescents, youth, and mature citizens.

A nation to be successful, progressive, depends on its citizens.
A nation needs to be able to sustain itself and to replace itself.
The birth of each child in every nation should be a celebration
and an acknowledgement that a future is assured because
our children are born. Abortion says otherwise. It says
death. And again as Mother Teresa would say “it is the
greatest destroyer of peace.”


Friday, 13 November 2015

My Brother's Keeper





              
Am I My Brother’s Keeper? (Genesis 4:10)

 

Dear friends as we sat in silence and waited for those members in parliament to see if they would vote in favour of their littlest brothers and sisters who would otherwise be condemned to death without even one person being able to offer a last moment of reprieve or even to stand there and wait whilst they died, the words “am I my brother’s keeper kept echoing loudly in my head “this thought came strongly into my heart. I share it with you because I think the words are appropriate and relevant for these days.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Asks Cain of God (Gn 4:10)

This original question remained suspended and unanswered for innumerable thousands

of years until it was answered by Jesus’ own resounding YES on the cross. No greater love hath he that he lay down his life for his friend

“No greater love hath he that he lay down his life for his friend” (Jn 15:13) or perhaps even lay down his life for his littlest brother/sister. This is what has been asked of those who answered the question “am I my brother’s keeper”

Jesus on the Cross died in place of his brother or sister and

in doing so answered the question “am I my brother’s

keeper”“   Yes. Yes.  shouts Jesus. “I died so my brother doesn’t die”

Yes, yes answered Jesus we are our brother’s keeper. This

is the response of love in answer to that ancient question of anti-love.

Today the new place of anti-love, the new place of violence, abortion demands a new response to. "Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes” answers Jesus and is willingly sacrificed.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Yes we respond by doing all we can to save our littlest brother or sister.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Yes, when we all mourn for the littlest one who is unjustly killed and its mother and father cannot mourn for it.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes” we answer when we refuse to accept the death of our littlest infants.

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes, I am my brother’s keeper and his load which becomes too heavy I will help him carry”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes I am my brother’s keeper, I care that he dies unknown unrecognised, unloved. I care for him.”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes” I am my brother’s keeper, I mourn for every child who dies unloved, unwanted, uncherished.”

Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes” I am my brother’s keeper, I bleed because he is shredded and bleeds and dies.”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes I am my brother’s keeper, his death is unjust and his voice cries out

for justice and is in pain.”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes I am my brother’s keeper I will not stand by and watch while my

brother is killed and incinerated like something worthless. He is my greatest

treasure. My brother’s unjust death washes the ground with his blood. This has been done before. Sacred blood.”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”

“Yes I am my brother’s keeper I will

not stand by and watch a child be abused, ill-treated, enslaved, killed.”

“Yes I am my brother’s keeper. I am diminished when my littlest brother or sister is wantonly killed.

Yes truly I am my brother’s keeper.”

Jesus responded to this question “am I my brother’s keeper?” when His own blood fell to the ground in droplets. He responded “I will redeem you and restore honour to you because you are my brother. I am your keeper. Your will not be alone.”  

Monday, 19 October 2015

Life Written In Tears-Abortion

          



Anne what exactly do you do?  This question is either answered swiftly as “grief counsellor” or “post abortion grief counsellor” depending on location or even questioner because it really does make a difference. The difference is that it may take hours or it may even lead to long discussions about prolife or prochoice issues on abortion and I don’t always want to engage in this discussion.

In my work I deal with what is called disenfranchised grief.  The kind of grief which is not supposed to occur because elective abortion is considered a choice for the termination to be made.  While there are different views surrounding difficult issues like abortion, the grief which follows is caught up in word games of political correctness.

Abortion, which is touted as only  a minor procedure, readily available, a woman’s right, a “non-event”  in fact does create dissonance both internally and societal.   Abortion grief is   “disenfranchised” (Doka, 1989) because whilst abortion is globally available, legal, and funded it is still not spoken about.  It is still placed in the woman’s peccadillo history.   A woman who miscarries is supported in her grief because she is seen as having “lost” the baby.  It was out of her control.  A woman who aborts has little if any support because she is seen as having chosen to terminate the life of her “foetus”. Her pregnancy was not considered endangered she chose the outcome.  Disenfranchisement comes from invalidation of her very real pain and sense of loss.  More painful than miscarriage because the woman sees herself as the instrument of her decision.

Because abortion grief counselling is still in its early stages of development and in many cases this type of grief still not even accepted, and therefore “best method” counselling still in the process of discovery, the rigid adherence to one particular approach I believe would be unsuitable because many things have to be taken into account.  E.g. counsellor’s own ideas about abortion and life matters which in cases may colour counselling and outcomes, even detrimentally.    
Abortion grief is not normal grief, I believe it is a complicated type of grief. Depression always follows, especially where the abortion decision is made under duress or fear.  Abortion grief is exacerbated through the need to remain silent and therefore no support network present.

My role, (and the role of any really good abortion grief counsellor) which I have developed over nearly 20 years through counselling, study, reading,  prayer, is to facilitate the grieving process which at times has been suppressed for many  years.  Perhaps the best way to explain what I do is to say that I actively give the woman grieving for an aborted child the permission to openly mourn and weep and to acknowledge the humanity of her child and the reality of the child’s death.   I honour, in the person grieving, her belief that her baby was of inestimable value.  I help her temporarily reconnect with her baby by helping her name the child, establish some history, establish a permanent name memorial where wanted,  and in due course bid the child goodbye with a goodbye ceremony.

When an abortion or miscarriage occurs there is usually the beginning of a story, small middle but no usual ending to the story, a baby.  This interrupted ending leaves the spiritual and psychological incomplete. This special grief counsellor helps to complete as much as possible the story. We support the process of grief, which has remained exposed and raw and help close the story for both mother and child in a beautiful manner as it should be.

As human beings we have a need to construct language, signs, symbols by which we attach meaning, and meaning for the human being is very important. If we can make sense or make meaning of something even very difficult, then we can cope with all manner of pain.  

 In this work of collecting of abortion tears, “meaning” is important because the loss through the abortion has proven to be traumatic.  “Meaning” is important because the result (of the abortion) has not brought to the woman her expected outcome, that is, freedom from difficulties, but instead has introduced a new dimension of difficulty and pain,  one which she had not anticipated. In this area of work “meaning” over the loss is attached to her own set of moral standards.  Meaning is found in the “meaning” of these standards for her.  All serious losses have “meaning” attached to them because assumptive worlds are disturbed by these losses. Her world of her normal has been shaken and nothing seems will be the same ever again.

 Emotionally relocating the aborted child into a spiritual (heavenly) realm is very healing for a mother who has at times lived with nightmares or even imaginings of her “dismembered” and hurting baby. To a mother who pre abortion did not look to internet for abortion images but now is drawn to them like a moth to a light,   to see the baby “whole” and well and beautiful and with God brings peace to her heart.  Releasing the child willingly to God.  Saying a conscious if tearful goodbye in the hope of a joyful future re union.  This is painful but also most healing.  It is an long journey to this place but in the area of abortion, relocating the infant into the arms of God and understanding love and forgiveness and reunion assists in the healing process. The therapist must also understand these to act as a special guide.   There will be future grief, yes, as with other types of losses, but it will be grief, and not despair.

 Continuing bonds with lost loved ones enables the relationship to be maintained, not as it might have been but in a new and different dimension.  When dealing with love and loss, it is unthinkable that physical absence would diminish the attachment or the bond.
Where there is deep mourning, anguished grief there is also found deep and unswerving love and this is the dimension, love, which does not die.  Love changes its dimension but continues.

 To forget and move on has a dimension of “use” inscribed within it.  To remember achingly has a dimension of “love “and “forever” inscribed within it.  To remember means that all that the baby was and was meant to be was not left behind but will be carried forward into the future, and into eternity because its history was written with Mum’s shed tears.

 

.