Hospital chapel

Press, 1 June 1989, Page 16

Hospital chapel

Sir, —There would be few who used the hospital chapel more than I did during my years on the staff, and few who appreciate the beauty and fact that it is a memorial more than I do. As the daughter of a priest, I have been brought up in the atmosphere of the Church, and everything that pertains to the beauty of church life is very dear to me. But, be it Cathedral, parish church or chapel, if it is not used for worship it is dead. The existing will not be used as it will

be off the main traffic lane. The site we have been offered, and have accepted, is right in the heart of the hospital for all to use, patients, visitors and staff alike. Let us not be selfish and keep our beautiful windows, etc., hidden in a mausoleum. Let them be used to enhance our relocated chapel in order that it may be a place of beauty, where all may share our lovely things. It would be a living memorial to those who gave their lives and continue to be a true House of God. —Yours, etc., E. E. PURCHAS. May 29, 1989.

Sir,—We are at present working as staff nurses at Christchurch Hospital. Our association and feelings for the Nurses’ Memorial Chapel motivated us to spend the last 10 days researching, talking and listening to many aspects of the controversy. We now believe there is an alternative to demolishing the chapel that other nurses may not be aware of. The Friends of the Chapel, the R.S.A., and the Historic Places Trust all want two chapels: (1) A “working” chapel to be sited in the new hospital in the area put aside for this purpose. (2) The Nurses’ Memorial Chapel retained on its present site, thus preserving the spirit, special feeling, beautiful scale and memories of a unique ecumenical chapel.—Yours, etc.,

L. A. MCFADDEN, SARA NAPIER, JUDY TURNER. May 27, 1989.

Sir,—There are still some people who cannot grasp the issues surrounding the preservation of the Christchurch Hospital Nurses’ Memorial Chapel. The Friends of the Chapel argue that a new facility should be incorporated in the hospital redevelopment as patients must have access to a chapel. But nobody needs to spend $250,000 selectively dismembering the memorial chapel which, by the Canterbury Hospital Board’s own admission, contains features of great architectural and historic value and reassemble it in a “mock castle.” There are no technical obstacles to preserving the chapel on its present site. Access, car-parking, security can all be taken care of without difficulty. Indeed, the proposals we will soon present to the public will not only save money but will enhance the hospital frontage and become a visitor attraction. Antagonists should shed their negative thinking caps, stop erecting road blocks and look at ways of preserving unique aspects of our heritage.— Yours, etc., N. J. RUTLEDGE. May 28, 1989.