Sunday, 13 May 2018

So this is not Life?

His Holiness Pope Francis.
Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandoned live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children
 --- Gaudete et Exsultate Rejoice and Be Glad #101-102

The  Holy Father Pope Francis has for some years been persecuted unmercifully and called many names and titles (false prophet, anti-Christ) by supposedly “good Catholics” which should make us all hang our heads in shame.  One pro-life group especially has used social media to carry out a campaign of division since this Pope was elected.  Pope Francis has even been accused of not being “pro-life” the quote on this page are his thoughts in his latest exhortation. He defends not only those in the womb first but then all kinds of suffering human beings.

We work hard to save a child from abortion (rightly so) but then stand by whilst human trafficking of enormous proportions is carried out in our day and age.  Trafficking of young little children for the purpose of sexual gratification by wicked/evil individuals and groups? As someone said to me recently “because of their innocence and “virginity” What have we become that we have businesses which would do this to children.
Yes we’ve worked and will continue to work hard to save babies in the womb because we believe that they have a right to their life as a gift given to the parents even if they don’t know it and we have saved the child in the womb only to let that child be exploited, used, abused, starved, beaten?  Is being pro-life only about life in the womb but nothing else? Are we pro-lifers sabotaging our language just as surely as the pro aborts and pro choicers who sabotage the word “choice” and “rights” are we going to do the same? With the word “pro-life? Meaning only life in the womb?  Are we only interested in life in womb or life of a child in its continuum? Life is life. A child is a child even when they are being raped and then passed on to someone else etc. etc. to do the same.  Child trafficking isn’t to give a needing child a wonderful life and opportunity it is to give some badly damaged individual distorted pleasure.

We all remember an image of a little 3 year old Syrian boy found washed up on sea shore about 2-3 years ago.  It broke all our hearts seeing that little one floating face down in the water.   Dead. Have we
so quickly forgotten? Was the life of that child whose parents let him live (not aborted him) but then he was lost due to place of his birth and right/wrong political landscape?
What about pro-life and euthanasia where elderly are now fearful of going to hospitals just in case they never leave hospitals alive. Or even the disabled whose life is deemed valueless. Is this not Pro Life?
We all of us write about our horror and euthanasia, indeed at this moment we have the story of a distinguished elderly professor who has gone to Switzerland to have himself done in. 
Or even the tragic story of young Alfie Evans whose life was deemed so useless that even with all the world’s attention and offers of help from others professionals, hospitals etc. the courts and hospital and not his parents chose and carried out their decision that the child must die.
The Holy Father is recognizing these matters as pro-life matters and we must fight to reclaim the entire meaning of value of life beginning at conception, its hospitality in the womb and then deep respect for the humanity from birth to end of life.  Life is a continuum it always begins with the union of a sperm and ova and concludes in a human whose life was intended for good and joy and mirror the image of its creator and co-workers (parents).
This little two year old Alfie Evans, just like the little boy washed on sea shore tugged at heartstrings of all throughout the world, i.e. all who followed the story.   After being removed from life support he died in the early hours of Saturday morning after having breathed on his own for 24 hrs.  In a hollow voice the little one’s father said: “My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings at 02:30…absolutely heartbroken. I love you my guy.”  

his mother also spoke of his little wings and flying.  This is not pro-life work? What is it then?
And this only a matter of short time after the other child Charlie Gard, at the same hospital and same illness, was also doomed to die.  This should never have happened.  The hospital or the courts or no one but the parents are the guardians of their child. Or has big brother started flexing his muscles with the youngest in the womb, disabled, and elderly? Already?
 Is this what we can expect in the future?  Is this not pro-life matters?
This child Alfie Evans had been granted Italian citizenship to be able to be taken the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù children’s hospital which had offered to take the child for further diagnosis and treatment, but enter the British courts which repeatedly refused to allow the transfer, ruling that it is not in the child’s best interest. So the courts and the hospital and maybe even the janitor at the hospital deemed that it was in the child’s best interests but not the parents? Stopping these matters, is this not pro-life?  Where were the parent’s rights to determine which way to go with their child? Their child.  Or does this mean that already when someone goes into hospital for treatment they lose their rights?  This is not life matters? We pro-lifers don’t fight this? Is it too hard?

How interesting in the same week a prince was born.  The media and world rejoiced (and rightly so) but another young prince (to his parents) was intentionally left/made/forced to die.  There is a tragic irony in that isn’t there?

The Holy Father Pope Francis, supported and prayed for the child and family and offered to encourage public prayer for them who met with Alfie’s father last week, has offered public prayers for Alfie and his family several times, including at a general audience and in several twitter posts
 “Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity
shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted,” he said Monday on Twitter.
But the final and tragic decision was to keep the child at that Hospital and die.  One must ask the questions what that hospital had to hide to fight so hard to keep that child there.

All of this saga not pro-life? 

He was spared from death in the womb to be insisted that he die by same people who would no doubt have carried out many abortions.

If I were a British mother I would not take my child near that place because immediately you enter the doors you lose rights over the outcome and treatment of your child. 
When the Holy Father speaks about poverty this is considered much much less of a pro-life matter.
Have we forgotten the images of little ones with bloated bellies and hollow eyes? Or even desperate mothers offering an empty breast for comfort to her dying little child?
 This is not pro-life?  What are we doing when we can say that these matters are not pro-life?
What are we doing playing with words or semantics.
We must not forget that life is always life and death, no matter how it occurs, is always death.












Sunday, 10 December 2017

Male and Female He Created them

In the beginning God created male and female, human, one being, one nature, but separate, different yet together.  An image of the Divine Trinity.  One Being, one nature yet entirely different. (Gen 2:23). This very real difference yet sameness of nature (male and female) is not reducible and cannot be denied or changed.  The differences yet the sameness are inscribed in the essence of both male and female. 

The principle of this difference between male and female is then tempered and strengthened and confirmed with free will to lead to a communion of body and spirit without reservation and without need to return to the womb for comfort.  The womb of the past is replaced by a new womb where male and female tie their bond to one another.   “This is why a man leaves his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be as one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Human beings have a nature perfectly attuned to complementarity without which there is disunity and dis-communion.

In a society like modern society which is fixated with over sexualised images and over sexualised language and innuendo, the call for deconstruction of marriage seems not unexpected because marriage means something else. It has deeper meanings, an external manifestation of an internal and eternal ecstasy. An overflow of love. So a society which does not see marriage in its deepest meaning must surely decline into something we witness today. 

Marriage in its original design was for male and female. God formed the Y chromosome (him) and  the X chromosome for her, and together they formed the XY “male and female He created them.”  However the XY is to be carried by the male so that he in his giving donates the son or daughter to each other. She on her behalf donates only what she has been given and that is her X chromosome but also the gift of carrying the joined XX (daughter) or XY (son) on their behalf.

Imagine he carries the gender she carries and delivers their fruit of that union.

As I ponder on the words “male and female He created them” I am always sent into deep thought.  We are told that God created Adam from the soil and then breathed into his nostrils His very breath, then God put Adam into a state of ecstasy or “deep sleep” and from Adam “made” Eve as companion for the man. Which means that Eve received her “God-ness” from “man?” In silence, where not even “Adam” may see the moment of “creation.” How?  From the same soil?  No. Woman is to be more refined so she can clearly “hear” the voice of “life” and respond. In the moment of “conjugal ecstasy,”  is the moment when God formed Eve for man. One like himself (human) but different who like him creates.  So that on His own He has desired to have leave open the way for His own “gift” to them, life to be received.  Creator God says that from deep within and alone Adam (man) is incomplete and on her own Eve (woman) is incomplete. 

What intricate mastery there is in this idea of creation?

And also how did God “Take out” from Adam the X chromosome to create Eve from it?  Enter the Holy Spirit.  We know that the Holy Spirit “Overshadowed Mary” who could only have within her X chromosome, so how did she deliver an XY (son) and not a (daughter) but she did miraculously conceive Jesus. Could the same Holy Spirit “overshadow” the X chromosome taken from Adam and birth Eve? The Holy Spirit, the spirit of Life created the first prototype and told them to continue his work by being fruitful and multiplying.
Is the sin of Adam and Eve against the Holy Spirit the Lord and Giver of life and that is why Jesus says that sin against the holy spirit cannot ever be forgiven because it is the Holy Spirit who “overshadows” creation to make it come into being? And rejection of what the Holy Spirit has brought into being is a rejection of the desire of the Father brought about by the Holy Spirit.
It is the Holy Spirit who says yes to the new idea and work of creation of God. It is the Holy Spirit who overshadows the x or y and enlivens these so that long before there is even a hint of conception a new creation has been knitted together by the overshadowing, which of course, means in secret and away from vision.
The theme of overshadowing or tabernacling is important because we encounter this right at the beginning of time, the beginning of all creation and throughout scriptures in cloud overshadowing Moses on Sinai, Cloud overshadowing the people of Israel as they travelled through desert, the Cloud overshadowing Jesus and Peter James and John on Tabor. And of course the overshadowing of Mary to conceive Jesus.
And this overshadowing and tabernacling in the form of a cloud or pillar of fire or quiet whisper, or hand which covers cavern on the mount in order to protect as the Lord passes by, the burning bush which bears the Lord without being consumed, is believed to be the Holy Spirit. The Shekinah. The Kabód, the Glory of Yahweh which created them male and female, at the spoken word.  the mysterious genders which makes them same but very different. This makes them have a need for one another and fulfil the words of God “it is not good that the man should be alone, I will make for him a helper fit for him.” (Gen. 2:18). And to fulfil the command to be “fruitful, multiply, fill the earth” (Gen. `:28). Man without woman, and woman without man cannot fulfil this command. Each alone is barren.






Friday, 24 November 2017

Documentary Humble Hope (sexual abuse of children)



Sexual abuse of children is endemic and serious. Present at the screening of Humble Hope were some of the victims who were interviewed for the documentary film. Some had family members who had lived with and supported the victims through their great suffering and were now present to accompany them along their journey. This documentary is important because it has brought together the various Christian denominations in acknowledging the enormity of the problem and the pain which this has caused its victims.  The Repentance ceremony brought tears to every viewing eye with its raw emotion. This ceremony was held on the  2015 National Day of Prayer and Fasting  in Parliament House in Canberra and  during the ceremony, leaders of various denominations including Catholic, Anglican, Salvation Army, and others  washed the feet of a former child victim of sexual abuse, now an adult, called Mark.  Mark, a victim who had been abused as a child whilst in religious institutional care.

This documentary utilizes the opinions of various experts, including psychologists, counsellors and social workers, authors, who deal with and who have experience with this phenomenon called sexual abuse of children. Each of the professionals bring their own understanding of the phenomenon, the damage that sexual abuse of children does, both to the child and later to the same child as an adult, and the possibilities of healing.

This documentary follows the lives of several victims as they tell their story of pain, shattered lives, self-harm, self-mutilation and life-sabotaging behaviours. The victims speak openly of the pain of not understanding why it happened to them. Why God allowed it to happen to them. Of being very lonely. Of hating themselves and their bodies, and of feeling they're not worth very much.

All expert speakers spoke of the need for healing and forgiveness, and indeed, the victims themselves had the understanding that forgiveness had to be worked into the healing process. Each of them had to work this healing in their own way. But always that it was a process.  Each had to find this healing in their own way and in their own time. Healing also had to have its own meaning for them.

This documentary is a must for all denominations and all churches. This can be a tool to help all people of good will to help tackle a most grotesque hidden enemy in our society.
Sexual abuse of children remains a last remaining taboo.  It has the potential to create a dissonance within the innermost being of  those we would call “normal” human beings, but because this is so it contributes to the hidden ness factor.

Humble Hope also introduces the topic of pornography and shows how pornography contributes to the violation of personal dignity, sexuality, the body.  It trivializes women, desensitises men and says that women and children are things.  Pornography is found in and deeply wounds what was once happy marriage and family and can be found proliferate.  Porn shows women and children as less than human whose social worth is zero and when there is porn, torture, and abuse can be seen as entertainment.

At the same time, any understanding of how sin works its deceitful evil is a help to us, and understanding how pornography works in the male mind is a powerful knowledge. Pornography and sexual abuse are sins which rob God of his glory in the gift of sex and sexuality. We have long known that sin takes hostages. We also know from studies in neuroscience that pornography hijacks the male brain.

Pornography always exploits women and children indeed any viewer and in this way is very insidious. Pornography sees the victims (child/girl/boy/woman/man/porn addict) as objects and so much dehumanised.
How does pornography dehumanise its victims? Human beings feel dehumanised when intimate parts of the body are used and abused. When intimacy is not held as sacred but used for the purpose of someone else’s voyeuristic pleasure.

When intimacy and intimate parts of another’s body is used for illegitimate purposes. When sexuality becomes a means of tying knots in the psyche of another human being. This leads to the utter helplessness of dehumanisation.

Both the victim and perpetrator become dehumanised, and with each new level of perversion attained a new and more explicit level must be found and so that the addiction is ensured. More and more dehumanisation becomes accepted as the norm.
Sexual abuse and pornography renders the victim disabled. This, by the destruction of the victim’s innocence and the deep wounding of the spirit, and most importantly with these assaults on innocence result in the deep and deliberate assault and wounding of the spirit and belief that God has abandoned them.
Humble Hope a documentary about pain but also a documentary filled with humble hope.   A documentary which clearly shows the resilience of the human spirit.  

Anne Lastman



Saturday, 11 November 2017

Post Abortion Syndrome.

Dear Friends it’s been said to me that I now speak less about PAS and more about sexual abuse of children within the family.

Perhaps others of my readership feel the same and so I thought I will deal with this here.
I have spoken, written, and counselled on abortion grief for many years. I’ve even written a book, many many articles written and published.   I face this grief daily and daily I learn a bit more and am confirmed in what I already know and do.
One such comment from a reader of my newsletter was “…but Anne post abortion pain is the most important pain in our day”
and I agree with this but I also have to respond to the reality that sexual abuse grief is as endemic and as proliferate as abortion grief. I encounter this in daily work.
I have read every study put out by various researchers into abortion grief, and yes I know all about, guilt, shame, fear, anxiety, suicide thinking, depression, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, panic attacks, fear of decision making, flash backs, relationship difficulties and a self-destructive desire. I know and have seen these almost every day since I began.  Indeed today I am able to identify someone who is not truly post abortive but a plant (yes these happen).
I have recently worked through something which no other researcher has yet mentioned, and this because the client herself spoke the words. “I’m angry, Anne, with my baby for coming to me. She knew I couldn’t manage, I couldn’t have a baby.  She knew I was afraid. Why did she make me make such a decision?  I didn’t want to make such a decision. I’ve always wanted a family and never believed in abortion.  So why did she come to me when I couldn’t manage so I had to make such a decision?  I feel evil for even thinking this way but I am angry because I know I shouldn’t have done it.  I want to blame her but I know I’m being irrational.” (Kate-once off so far)
These are words I have heard not once (similar others) but many times throughout the years.  An anger with the baby for implanting in her womb.  She and they know it’s irrational but feels this anger.  Why?  I have to ask the question and then try and work out the answer so I can help my client.
It’s all well and good to read research, and studies but unless we can come up with answers then we won’t be able to work out how to help.
I have to admit that years back when I first noticed this anger (and since then) it had me baffled.  Blaming a tiniest baby for implanting in its natural home?  Why? And over much thought and even waking up during the night and thinking about it, I’ve slowly come to some sort of answer. An answer that helps me to be able to apply strategies to help and overcome this pain.  At the core of abortion grief is soul pain.  And it’s the soul pain which needs to be addressed. We might even call it conscience pain. Conscience knowing of the wrong done. Blaming the other is a running away from the conscience pain.
The anger is not really at the child because she is grieving her infant deeply (otherwise she wouldn’t be seeking help from me or others) but at her failure to recognise the attachment and bonding which began at the moment when the baby reached his/her home, the womb.
A mother has it written in her being to welcome her child home, her home and not remove her child in violence like an intruder.  Indeed some feminists called it a “ parasite,” and her anger is the realisation that she also treated her baby like an intruder and had it  violently removed and in that decision which has gone against all which is her design she now (after abortion) is angry and desolate. 
The flippancy of some who say that “I had 3, 2, 5, etc. abortions and I’m ok” is just that. Flippancy. A self-protective device so as not to be angry about her decision.  A temporary and necessary blindness so as not to feel pain. A soul sedative.  Though in due course it must be acknowledged and addressed and sedative stopped.
Acknowledging the anger, helping her to feel that it’s an anger she needs to feel and express, many times if needs be,  but then to let it go is important. Acknowledging that the embryo implanted because first of all God said YES to this new perfect creation according to His design,  but at a rational level the soil in the garden was ready to receive the seed and so began the work of growth of new flower.
Acknowledging that her anger is directed at the baby because she is unable to think that she would naturally make such a decision. This needs exploration and time. What is behind this thinking? Why afraid of being punished.
Once this is acknowledged and spoken out loud and not in any way feeling judged or rejected because of her feeling this anger then in time the work of healing can really begin.
We speak about all the symptoms associated with abortion grief and perhaps even run off the list of known symptoms that we know and have read about many times but sometimes I believe that we have depended too much on the rational in order to receive acceptance by medical, health communities, and society, and failed to recognise what really, deeply, is the cause of the pain of the post abortive woman who mourns in a complicated manner.
For me the longer I am involved in this work (together with sexual abuse grief which has very similar symptoms and the same violence is committed) the more I am convinced that abortion grief occurs as a result of the disrupted and violated conscience or soul of woman. Her design is such that she always sacrifices for her planted flower which has sprouted from the perfect seed.
There is a knowing embedded in her which is absent from the man, though he too knows and feels the loss of a flower from the garden and mourns the end of a species (or generations that might have been).
I believe that today there is a knowledge that abortion causes deep grief in the woman and we know that there is a finding of 81% of women who had an abortion  are at higher risk of mental health problems of any type, compared to women who have not had an abortion. Over all mental health problems of women 10% are due to abortion (Coleman- Meta analysis 1995-2009). When we think even 10% of the global feminine population then we have much grief and are horrified at the loss of life.  And we can be assured it’s written in the design of woman because otherwise it would not be a global reaction but limited to an area. 
Whilst it’s good to read old studies and new studies, what I believe is necessary is to begin to insist that abortion grief is given the same attention as any other neonatal loss grief.  Indeed it has to be recognised as a neonatal death and not whispered about so that it remains silent.
What we need is the medical profession to recognise that behind depression, self-harm, addictions, etc. there might be a pain which a pill won’t fix. Questions need to be asked before writing prescriptions.
We have a need for the mental health professions not to be intimidated by the feminist movement, billionaires who give money to destroy life, politicians, who have given up on morality, counsellors who don’t allow their own pro-abortion understanding to try and validate the pain of the other.  We need psychiatry to acknowledge post abortion grief so that other mental health and general health practitioners listen.


We need universities who teach grief studies to teach prospective practitioners about abortion and the management of such grief, and we need programmes to manage such a different and complicated grief. We need rituals which human beings need to conclude life stories.  We need the DSM to acknowledge such grief. (Diagnostic and statistical Manual- of mental disorders).
I believe that after nearly 50 years of studies there are not too many who would say abortion doesn’t hurt (“my friend had an abortion 47 yrs. ago and she’s never got over it”-(Sally recently).  Abortion today is recognised as deeply wounding but what is not recognised or even not fought
against is the fact that the response to this grief is tainted by
politics and not by genuine concern for woman. 
Even most of the studies we read avoid mentioning the pain of the dying baby (late term).  Studies speak of pain of the woman and self-destructive behaviours and change of personality, but not the fundamental reason for this imprint of this pain. This is tended to with a prescription or platitudes.
The rational would have us try and explain the behaviours and changes in personality but not the wound on the essence of life.  Such an explanation is considered “religious,” and out of rigidity of belief.  The irony of this is that non-religious experience the same internal, unknown heart pain.   
We know that grief is the result of loss. Loss of love of someone or something important to our lives.  Grief speaks of the need to embed into memory the story of the one lost.  Grief ensures that one lost had a meaning and is never forgotten.  Knowing this, it’s so dishonest not to have available the knowledge about abortion grief and then the wherewithal to deal with the issue. Today loss of a pet and its grief is acknowledged, but not loss of one’s own baby.

I have spoken to medical profession, to counselling, and to other professionals but still abortion and its grief is a “forbidden” subject because of its political powerbase.
This is what needs to change.  This is what is not understood.  This is the insincerity and falsity which is attached to availability and legal abortion that it passes as concern for “reproductive health” when in fact it’s a lie which deeply damages women’s health. 
Part of my newsletter, Broken Branches, PO Box 6094, Vermont South, Victoria,  3133 Australia.    




Saturday, 14 October 2017

Rights & Equality


Over the past 50-60 years the word “rights” has gathered so much momentum that today whenever there is a desire to change something the word which will send shivers through spine of legislators is “rights.” It’s my “right” to abort. It’s my “right,” to call myself male when I am biologically female. It’s my “right” for me to evolve into any of the prescribed hundreds of newly founded and named genders. It’s my “right” to have myself euthanized. It’s my “right”  to suicide if and when I want to and  if I can’t carry out my suicide then it’s my “right” to demand that someone does it  for me.  All of this because of my dignity and so I can die with dignity and so I can be who I am with dignity and so on and one and on.

On the rights issue is the reality that children lose their right to know surely and securely who their mother and father, and all their preceding generations are.   That they were not just placed in a gestational carrier, or artificial womb and then handed over to someone who ordered their “life” But have a mother who has carried them in her body beneath her heart, and a father who has engendered their life and to be protector.
Children have a right to a father who will model manliness for them.  To a son will be shown how to be a boy and then a man and to daughter the type of man she chooses for the future because her father was a wonderful role model. 

The transmission of life is written in the cells of each parent and they complement one another to give life, and this belongs in the human race to a man and a woman, irrespective of what “rights” are demanded.

Right to die when I say I want to die.  I also demand that another help me in my dying. Irrespective of the fact that the other has then to live with the fact that he/she did the pulling of the plug or helped with poisons administered and you died.
And what about those who are not ill but simply want to jump ship because it’s a bit hard.  Their desires must also be same as the others' who have the right to the demanded rights. 
Then there is the emerging new word is “equality” Ah yes!! The new word which has found favour with the light, green, different “rights” seeking mob.
" I demand to be recognised in my same sex “marriage” because otherwise my rights will be trampled on and I will be seen as different and I won’t be equal to everyone else.  It’s even my right to be seen as equal and to have my relationship accepted as equal as the rest of society.  I demand this right to equality. Even television commercials tell us that we are not equal until everyone is equal." 
It’s characteristic of a group of people which is blinded by tragedy which has befallen them. These people have created a new tower of babel. The confusion which these two new words, “rights” “equality” is causing is nothing new but a return to primitiveness.  Returned to re-create the voice of babel again.  This voice cannot be understood and a disconnection from life and vulnerability and loss of pure joy and even the certain knowing of definite rights and definite equality.
At the core of the tragedy which has befallen modern times is the rejection of God, which has then led to rejection of life first in the infants, and now demanded for the disabled, elderly, frail.   The loss of awe for life.  Those who would destroy life at every stage and for whatever reason have already lost the idea of “awesomeness” which is life.
Those who argue for cheap life have lost the sight and understanding of that mystery called life.
Marriage, sexuality, stability, complementarity,  all of which  are designed for life are in danger rendering children, who are the future, to be in grave danger and other vulnerable individuals also in danger.


Thursday, 7 September 2017

Pope Francis

Flooding my email and post box are “end time” materials which I understand are to correct me on my stance regarding His Holiness Pope Francis, and these materials are to enlighten me.  I don’t like what is happening to His Holiness Pope Francis. In fact I hate it.  I think that this is why some of the tears of the Holy Mother. The confusion which has emerged as a result of   Benedict “retiring.” He returned the cross to Jesus and said it’s too heavy.   

I remember when he was elected, on the balcony he said “pray for me that I may not flee from the wolves”   Well he fled from the wolves.  Yet now he remains visibly around the Vatican making public comment and undermining Pope Francis. If he decided it was too hard he should have disappeared.   THERE WAS ONLY ONE “PETER” NOT TWO. Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to “Peter” and said to him “I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven” Mt 16:19.

Benedict changed the nature of the papacy.  He made it into a job just like any other job. Like any job where one can retire at 65-70 years of age.  Or if one doesn’t like ones job you quit or if your boss doesn’t like you he fires you.  A job.  Peter’s charism is NOT a job. It is the continuous spirit which governs and accompanies the Bride of Christ along the journey towards the kingdom and her groom Jesus.
St John Paull II remained Pope (Papá) Shepherd until the moment of his death and his flock waited with him till he died.  He didn’t abandon them and they didn’t abandon him. He was so close to his flock “he smelled like them” (words of Pope Francis). 
My friend Chris quoted to me the Blue Book Our Lady Speaks to her Beloved Priests and says he follows her: Perhaps he hasn’t read pages 276, 277 ‘This interior division is expressed by the tendency to leave to himself and to abandon, so to speak, the very Vicar of Jesus, the Pope, who is son particularly loved and enlightened by Me. My mother’s heart is wounded to see how the silence and neglect of my children often envelop the words and actions of the Holy Father, while he is increasingly struck and impeded by his adversaries.
Because of this interior division, his very ministry is not sufficiently supported and furthered by the whole church whom Jesus has wanted to be united about the successor of Peter.
My, motherly heart grieves to see how even some pastors refuse to let themselves be guided by his enlightening and trustworthy words.
The first way of being separated from the Pope is that of open rebellion (see the four cardinals and their open rebellion and taken hundreds of thousands with them which has nearly led the schism.)  But there is also another way, more subtle and dangerous.  It is that of proclaiming one’s unity openly but of dissenting from him interiorly, letting his teaching fall into a void and, in practice, doing the contrary of what he says.

What must you do? Become a hidden seed, ready even to die for the internal unity of the church.
And so I am leading you each day to a very great love for, and fidelity to the Pope and the Church united with him.”

Yes the smoke of satan has entered the church but not through Pope Francis, it entered long before that and it is Francis’ job to remove or clean out the smell of the smoke.  

It has been thrown at me Fatima and the third Secret   etc.  I don’t see it the way it’s interpreted and written, but I see the third secret and Our Lady’s horror, as something different.   I think the third secret which dares not be known is not about Amoris Laetitia, or communion to the so called “adulterers” or other sinners but it’s related to two popes, 2 Peters. Impossible.
Two symbolic males as “father”.  This is a sign of gay movement achieving their desires at the very top.  Benedict either wittingly or unwittingly made this happen by resigning and another take his office (Ps 109:8 Acts 1:15-26).  As satan approached “Peter” (Benedict) he did not rebuke him but responded to the insinuation to quit. Thus leaving the chair of Moses, now the Chair of Peter, empty until another was found.  TWO POPES is the secret. Jesus appointed one Peter only and handed him the keys. There is a famous painting depicting this, not two.   Two priests in white bearing the name of Pope.  Our lady foresaw this.
The teachings of the church are guarded and protected by the magisterium and the chief interpreter” Peter” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  If this is not so then “the gates of hell have prevailed” (Mat 16:18) and Jesus is found to not have protected His Bride, and weaker than satan.
Throughout history there have been Holy Popes and unholy ones but none of the unholy popes wrote, or declared anything, any teachings, because these teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit and the not so good popes were too busy having a good time to bother writing anything for the flock. 

Neither has pope Francis taught error. He is bringing into the fold a whole vineyard (Mat 20:9) who have not been hired.  He is bringing in the 99 lost whilst leaving behind the 1 who is not in danger.  The good vigneron takes good care of all labourers even those who work one hour.
Today there are two “fathers” leading the household/kingdom and the politics of this vision are dangerous, and not pope Francis. He is not the cause of the division but another is.  The other has to go or there will not be stabilisation at a time when “marriage” or conjugal life is demanded to be changed and legitimised and is the greatest challenge to ever face society, and a time when life is devalued and declared negotiable.  During these times the Church is in a state of confusion by itself leading the visible change, with its, “2 Fathers.”

The teachings of “Peter” are protected by the Holy Spirit and ensured that this is so, however, the words of “apostles” are not so.  This is why the confusion. The influence of others is held true whilst “Peter” is being in contempt.  



Friday, 5 May 2017




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