ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL CHAPLAINCY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20624, 13 August 1932, Page 11

ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL CHAPLAINCY.

TO THE BBtTOIt Off THE IT-ESS. Sir,—lt is good to know that there is someone so actively interested in tho history of our early pilgrims as Mr Hoot'i must be. Tho old saying was never truer than it is to-day that history is a tonic for drooping spirits and no poople are more fortunate in their ancestry than arc the people of Canterbury. Our purso campaign—l am sure of it, as 1 told someone who rang mo up in fear ,and trembling just now—is going to supply us with u chaplain; but it is meant, too, to tell of men and women who saw m Canterbury far worse days than we are seeing, and triumphantly came through. We tcok our information about Lord Cavendish from one of tho very earliest of our pilgrims, Mr J. E. Fitzgerald. These are his words: Lord Lyttelton, Lord R. Cavendish, Sir John Simeon, and others came forward again and again with advances out of their private fortunes to tho extent not of tens or hundreds but of! thousands and tens of thousands to save the scheme from ruin. . . Rarely, indeed, do College acquaintances ripen into such noble and absorbing friendships in after life. Jt had been better if "Level'' had not written. I see in the writer of that letter a stalwart enemy of tho hospital." An obstructionist policy clouds our vision and leaves us in the outer darkness. As for "Publican and Sinner," is he being true to his name? "He stood afar off," but he did say his prayers, didn't he? If his modern-day prototypes would but go into their churches on tho quiet of a week day and "smite their breast" and remember St. George's, how marvellously wo should go ahead 1 And hero the post came and with it a chequo for £2© to fill the ninth purse. We are getting on; but there are still some corners to turn before wo see. the end. May I plead again that some more among your readers may come eithor singly or as a syndicate "to the helo of tne Lord against tho mighty." Although we are on tho winning side and know it, there are mighty forces against utr. One sum of £2O or £lO. thus year and £lO next fills a purse. We much valued that halfncrown as well, which was sent to us.—Yours, etc.. J. RUSSELL TTILFORD. College House. August 12th, 1932.

'CO TUB ZDVtOB, 0* 'l'ilE I>He99 Sir, —In his last letter, Canon Wilford suggests—indeed says—that I do not want to see a chaplain at St. George's, and in a sons© he is right. I To me, personally, it makes not the very slightest difference, but to'others 1 it does; and it is in what I beiieve to j be their interests that 1 am going j somewhat reluctantly to say wuat i am. Before 1 begin, let mo say that I have the greatest, regard tor. everyj body at St. George's, oven—if he wiU believe me—tor CJanon VV ilford. If it were not that such a proceeding would involve the absence in another world of the Reverend Mother, there is no I one of whose canonisation 1 would wore warmly approve. In the last i issue of the 'Church Nows," the Bishop divided the Church of England into some half-dozon different parties. Some of them , were Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Modernists, Ritualists, and Anglo-Catholics, and there may have been somo more. Now each one of those divisions would assert that each of the rest was narrow, on the principle that Broad Churchmansbip is my ■ churchmansbip | and Narrow Churchmanship is yours. Although all are united in one allembracing Church of England, no one of these divisions would warmly approve of the doings of any of thtt others; at least, I think not. Now at the head of St. George's Hospital there is a body consisting of four or five intensely religions ladies, ladies to | whom the performance of certain religious duties is of absolutely fundamental importance. I do not doubt their sincerity. I know they are sincere. Indeed they are much more than sincere. They are, as I have I'said, earthly saints. But so entbusias- ! tic are they in the performance or ! their religious observances that they 1 are apt to think that every one else belonging to the wide-spread Church of England should be equally punctilious. They are, therefore, with the very best intentions, no doubt, inclined to bring undue pressure upon those that are under them in matters oif religion. I could give instances, but ; I do not want to do so, If Canon ! Wilford will deny that there is any [ suggestion of this kind of thing going I on at the Hospital, I will accept his denial, and ask him in advance to acI cept my apologies for having said so | and to fonvev those apologies to the community. But I think there is. At any rate, I have heard so on very good authority. Tf there is, the appointment of a chaplain of the same cast of thought.as these most excellent women is likely to accentuate the position seriously/ and rrtisrht do immense harm. I agree that the members of the staff should be members of the Church of England, bub as the Church

Of England is wide, so also should the religious liberty allowed to the members of the staff be wide. It might be well to bear in mind that St. George's is a Church of England Hospital, not an Anglo-Catholic, Fundamentalist, or Modernist Hospital, and I fear that that is apt to be a littje forgotten at the present moment. —Yours, etc., THE DRAGON. August 12th, 10*2. TO TMJS T.IWTOU OW tllE TJIXSa Sir,—Several of the letters under the above heading give a deep feeling of shame and -discomfort to your readers who haTe experienced being nursed in serious illness and pain by sisters belonging to a religious community. There are no words too gracious to bestow on those women; there is no gratitude too great for them. It matters not in ho loast if they are the Anglican sisters of St. George's, or tho sisters of the Little Company of Mary at Le wish am. Experience teaches one that they have their citizenship in Heaven, and aisi a revelation of what Christianity when it is real, can effect in human beings, As one who has been ministered to by these sisters, and who has watched dying friends served by them, let me protest my admiration of them, and my surprise at their work being unappreciated by any who have knowledge of it.—Yours, etc., SCOTCH PRESBYTERIAN. Lyttelton, August 12th, 1982. TO TJda SDITOB 0* THE I'RKSS. Sir, —"Churchman" states that "Churchman Also" ''suggests (and infcrentiolly hopes) that tho community lacks tho sympathy of the Church of England laity." Had "Churchman" read my letter properly he would have seen that this lack of sympathy between tho community and the Church of England laity was simply a quotation from his own letter. I. think you will bear me out when J state—l have no copy of my original letter —that the chief point I made was that Anglicans wore entitled to tho same ' sympathy between those who run St. George's and their lay patients as exists between the people who run another denominational hospital and their lay patients. However, it is only fair to "Churchman" to state that this point was obscured by certain excisions.—Yours, CHURCHMAN ALSO. Oxford, August 11th, 1932. P.S.—Would "Churchman" mind letting us know what is his objection to having St. George's run by people in complete sympathy with the religious convictions of their lay patients ? Most of us, in our ignorance, imagined that this was the one and only object in founding the hospital. Sir,—lt appears to me that it would be better to fill purses to aid St. Saviour's Orphanage. When additions were made to St. Saviour's Orphanage about years ago a great deal of money was spent in providing a line chapel, though when the money for the additions was sought nothing was said about a chapel. Many would have thought that a walk to a church would do the girls no harm. "Level" is right. If there is so much money about, why not employ a resident doctor? That is practical commonsense.-^Yours, etc, SQUARE. August 12th., 1982.