Historical Romance

Now available from Amazon.com and CreateSpace eStore

Captain James Marsh returns from WWII and leases a house in the English countryside. The cleaning staff find a mysterious cameo brooch. When trying to find the owner, Captain Marsh learns about an English girl on the Grand Tour in 19th century Italy and how she is brought face to face with the real Catholic Church.

Message to Americans from Canadians

Canadians are not Americans. Canadians are North Americans, however, and so are Mexicans for that matter. Americans seem to insist that Canadians are Americans. We do not say that Stephen Harper is an American Prime Minister, do we? And yet, logically, if Stephen Harper is American, and a Prime Minister then we could say he was an 'American Prime Minister'. Of course, this is ridiculous and no one thinks this. To put it simply, Canada, the USA and Mexico are all in North America. So Canadians, Americans (those people who are citizens to of the United States of America) and Mexicans are North Americans. But we are not all Americans. Only those who are citizens of the United States of America are Americans. We are separate countries with separate governments, separate flags, unique histories and we both speak dialects of English. By the way, in Canadians don't call Iraq 'Eye-raq' and we spell colour, honour and cheque differently. So please, please don't call Canadians 'Americans'.

Controversial Editorial in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

CBC News, Vancouver at 6 pm January 16, 2012 reported that a ‘controversial’ editorial has been written in the CMAJ by the editor-in-chief (interim), Dr. Rajinder Kale. Controversial? You bet! Dr. Kale advocates that the results of the child’s gender from an ultrasound should be withheld from the parents until the very late stages of the pregnancy. In his editorial, entitled, “It’s a Girl - Could Be a Death Sentence” (online www.cmaj.ca January 16, 2012) he states that a considerable number of Canadians in the South Asian and Chinese communities use these ultrasound results to choose boys over girls. In other words, if the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl, an abortion is done. Boys are preferred over girls because girls prove very expensive before marriage when a dowry must be paid to the groom. He claims that this type of abortion “is the worst form of discrimination against women.” Dr. Kale cautions against painting all South Asians or Chinese with the same brush as some are against such practices. But he adds “...postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. ...If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?” It, is of course, what people in the pro-life movement have been saying all along. But now we have a medical doctor who has written that abortion should not be used as a means of selecting boys over girls. But the implication in the editorial is more than that isn’t it? For if the ‘foetus’ is a boy or a girl, it is not just a ‘growth’ or a ‘blob of tissue’ that the mother has a right to do away with. Another medical doctor, Dr. Parghit Singh was also interviewed on the CBC report and he said that the practice of aborting female babies is ‘barbaric’. He actually said ‘female babies’! These two are not those radical,hated fundamentalists or Catholics who go marching around abortion clinics. Here are two doctors from South Asian cultures themselves who recognize that aborting female babies, for sex-selection at least, is wrong. It is a step in the right direction and perhaps soon people will realize that aborting babies of any gender is ending the life of not just ‘a foetus’ but a real, human life, ‘a baby’. It’s discrimination all right - against both male and female babies. And is it a barbaric custom.

A Program that Broke Barriers?

The CBC television program "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is advertising another year on TV with the ad 'The little program that broke barriers'. It is always a good idea to have a storyline that helps in understanding other cultures and religions. People need to know that there are Muslims who live ordinary lives and that only a few are the "terrorists" of the news channels. There are Muslims who are nice, ordinary people living all across Canada. "Little Mosque on the Prairie", in that sense, did break barriers and is to be commended. The Muslims in the small, prairie town are nice, ordinary Canadians who just happen to be Muslims. But my question is, "Why is the Anglican minister such a jerk?" Surely someone who decided to become an Anglican minister (or any Christian minister or priest) did not do so because of the glory or the remuneration as they don't get much of either. Why then did Rev. Thorne study many years to become a minister? Shouldn't he know something about Christian teachings? We don't ask that he be perfect but does he have to be the most selfish, self-centered, rude and thoughtless person on the face of the earth?. Is that breaking down barriers or building them? How is the program presenting Christianity? The Muslims in the story are not perfect but the Imam, comes pretty close. Remember June Cleaver? She was Beaver's wonderful Mom, the Mom everyone wanted to have, on the 50's show, "Leave it to Beaver". The young and handsome Imam in "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is the modern and male equivalent: always trying to be kind, always having good advice, always fair and always doing the right thing in the end.
Let's have a bit of fairness (and reality) here. Muslims have the freedom to worship in Canada. Christians are still waiting for the equivalent in Saudi Arabia. But in the meantime, lets at least have an Anglican minister in the program who is a bit more realistic - not perfect - just what you would find in real life. Then you might be able to say you are breaking down barriers. I don't watch it anymore.

Benedict XVI was "so emotional, he almost wept" during some of the key moments of World Youth Day, reports the archbishop of Madrid. (Zenit News Service, August 22, 2011).
I admit I felt the same way and I’m sure many others who watched the events on television did. What it must have been like to have been there! To see over 1 million people gathered together to share their faith in Jesus with others from all over the world! This is what it means to be Catholic - which means ‘universal’.
I agree with a Spanish woman who commented on the ‘young people who look so healthy and beautiful’. I couldn’t get over their beautiful faces, filled with joy and life. This is indeed hope for the future.
As these young people knelt to pray at the Vigil in Cuatro Vientos Airbase near Madrid there was an overwhelming silence. Over one million people - young people- that silent -is indeed a miracle of sorts.
I couldn’t help thinking about some other young people - those who recently rioted in Vancouver and also those who also rioted in London later in the year. The riots in Vancouver were apparently over nothing more than a lost hockey game! Do these young people represent the people in today’s society who have no purpose, no joy, no roots? How can people destroy the property of others and steal from the stores around - without any thoughts of what they are doing? Are these the ones who have never heard the words of Jesus, “Do to others what you would want them to do to you?”
Let’s be thankful that there are young people who know Jesus as their friend, who know that by their witness to Him the world can be changed. There will be many results of World Youth Day - we will not always hear the stories. We will not always hear about those who have come back to the Church of their childhood because of what they saw in those young people. We will not always hear the stories of the conversions. But we do know that faith, as small as a mustard seed, will grow.

A Wise Doctor

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to do as she asked. Then, he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body, if you choose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The Abortion Dilemma Part II

When I was training as a medical laboratory technologist (a long time ago), the term ‘foetus’ (or in the US ‘fetus’) was only used in the medical field. Ordinary people spoke about ‘unborn babies’ or ‘the baby’. Someone might ask expectant parents, “What are you going to name the baby?” or ask the expectant mother, “How is the baby?” She might answer, “This baby is very active. He is kicking me all the time.” or something similar. Have you seen an expectant mother wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing down to her stomach and a sign which says, “Baby here.” ? Did you ever see the UNESCO poster a while back, with a baby in utero, and the comment, “This might be the only home this baby will ever know.” ? Notice how the unborn baby is not called a ‘foetus’ in ordinary conversation. Only when one is talking about abortion is the word ‘foetus’ used. This is a clever move. We picture a ‘baby’ as something with big eyes, dimples, a cute smile, an innocent and very lovable being. A ‘foetus’ , on the other hand, does not sound all that human. It is not a ‘cute’ word. By using the word ‘foetus’ we can disassociate what we know as babies from the abortion discussion.
Maybe we should examine our use of language in this case. When do we use ‘foetus’ and when do we use ‘baby’? If an unborn child is ‘a baby’ how does it affect our feeling about abortion?
There is a newly released book, ‘Unplanned’ by Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in the US. I suggest you read it. I haven’t read it yet, but have seen an interview on Focus on the Family and plan to read it soon.