Re the Jan. 31 article “In northern B.C., the worship restrictions are gone, but not the pain and division”:

I am a physician living in Salmon Arm and have been a member of St. Joseph’s Parish for the past 41 years. There are many in the parish who, like myself, found your lead story misleading and misrepresentative of the reality in the community.

There was never an implementation of a vaccine mandate in this community. Rather, Bishop Joseph Nguyen simply followed and tried to enforce the public health mask mandate as he should, out of proper concern for the health of parish members, as well as responsible concern for the larger community. The mask mandate is an important public health measure and although it is not a guarantee to prevent infection, it helps. Other regulations also protect the health of our people, such as having smoke alarms and railings on stairs. This mandate is no different.

Sadly, a relatively small group in the parish politicized the matter and have steadfastly refused to comply with the bishop’s mask mandate. They have embraced the position that this is “government versus church,” as opposed to the reality that it is merely one of many practical guidelines used by health experts to try to best neutralize this pernicious virus. They have been coming to church without masks and adamantly rejected all efforts by well intentioned parishioners and two successive pastors to request their cooperation. As a result, our church has been closed for the past six weeks.

Their action is a direct affront to the authority of the bishop and the Holy Father, both of whom have strongly encouraged the following of measures aimed at reducing the impact of this terrible pandemic.

I am sure you can see this entire experience has been very painful for the majority of the parish and I have no doubt that this includes those who have taken a dissenting position. But please be clear, this matter is really a question of whether we can set aside what we perceive to be an issue of “personal rights and personal decision-making” in favour of “personal responsibility” … to our families, to our fellow parishioners, and to the wider community.

Rather than seeing it as an attack on our freedom, it is a call to community. The mask is not a sign of fear. It is a sign of love. It is worn out of concern for the other, the sick, the elderly. The confusion is not a result of government action but of misinformation and the inconsistency of the clergy in the diocese in implementing the mandate.

Public health rules are based on best science. In order for them to work, we all must follow them.  The bishop has done his best. There is no negative health impact from wearing a mask for one hour a week at Mass. It is my fervent hope that each of us here will agree to this simple act of love of neighbour so that we can return to being a loving, caring Christian community once again.

Brian Ayotte, MD
Salmon Arm


I appreciate your Jan. 31 article “In northern B.C., the worship restrictions are gone, but not the pain and division.”

The only issue I have with the article is that it’s sanguine. If the author was living here in Quesnel with us, the article would have had a much stronger headline because, in fact, restrictions are NOT all
gone.

The article would also have included more of the attention-grabbing news: funerals not being celebrated for unvaxed families, parishioners screaming at each other, security guards with vax pass scanners, and
so on. 

The article stated that no matter what the bishop did, “some were going to be upset.” He chose to side with the vaccinated part of the flock “so that our churches remain open.” But for the unvaccinated, the churches didn’t “remain open.” In Quesnel, my family was turned around on Christmas Eve by a security guard (they used to be called “greeters”) to whom I refused to show my vax pass on the grounds of opposing medical segregation. In-person Mass was already shut down for the unvaxed, so why create further division with medical segregation? Aren’t we a congregation? It would have been better to keep both the vaxed and unvaxed outside the church, as the nearby Valemount parish did, instead of separating church members into wheat and chaff. 

Does the bishop think that if he avoided medical segregation, his vaccinated parishioners would have rallied to demand Mass without their unvaccinated brothers and sisters? That’s a
preposterous thought, because the majority of vaccinated parishioners are anti-mandate.

Jonathan Deuling
Quesnel


I get the strong feeling The B.C. Catholic is anti-vax. I see a clear bias toward libertarian thinking that to me seems very self-centred.

I am in total agreement with our government and the media with regard to getting the vaccine against COVID. Is Christianity not about putting “our neighbour before ourselves”? (Phil 2:3-4) What about giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s? (1 Cor: 10:24).

My eldest brother left money in his will to the Canadian Government for giving him the privilege of living in this wonderful country. As an immigrant I am happy to be living here and wonder how many of your readers have lived under really oppressive governments. When our governments try to use persuasive arguments, libertarian attitudes risk the health of all those around them. We need to support rather than toss grenades into sound public policy.

Coralie Schellhase
Delta

(Thank you for your letter. I appreciate how The B.C. Catholic’s coverage of the pandemic may appear “anti-vax,” since mainstream media are not publishing dissenting viewpoints to government messaging. We did have debate about the ethics of the vaccines when they were first announced, but since the Church has declared they may be used in clear conscience we haven’t taken any position against the vaccines in principle. We have published opinion pieces about the vaccine mandate, pro and con, from readers and writers, and our coverage has pushed back against some of the government restrictions that appear arbitrary or disproportionate. But we have also published commentary in support of the government’s measures. We may appear biased in comparison to mainstream media coverage, but I maintain we’re doing a better job of providing balance to this story at a time when the media and Opposition parties are failing to do their jobs. – Editor)


Thank you to The B.C. Catholic for being a voice for Canadian rights.
Jayne Le Vierge
Vancouver


It is sad and disturbing to see The B.C. Catholic becoming more political by the issue.
Followers of Christ are filled with the grace of Jesus and, in turn, must spread his light and love to all others – yes, even toward our enemies, which is exactly what Jesus said and meant when he told us to turn the other cheek.
It doesn’t mean that we roll over and give up. But neither does it mean that we should give vent and, in doing so, add fuel and give rise to a mob mentality way of thinking. Let’s not run astray but instead stay “far, far from the madding crowd.”
Let’s get back to the basics: articles about our Holy Father, news from the Vatican, and reporting that tells us about our priests and local parish communities and events.
Thea Baxter
Surrey



Thank you for the Dec. 6 story “Notre Dame’s new field of dreams” about the new playing field and grandstand at Notre Dame Regional Secondary. We are quite proud of the new facility and are pleased that your readers have been able to share in our excitement about it.

The story quotes our football coach, Denis Kelly, as saying that some of our east Vancouver neighbours were upset with early plans for the facility because of “rumours … that it was going to be a 20,000-seat stadium.” The fact is, there was never a plan for such a large grandstand; the original proposal called for a seating capacity of 2,000.

Neighbourhood concerns about the capacity were quickly alleviated by the school and the City of Vancouver. Both concurred that the appropriate amount of seating should accommodate but not exceed the school population of 800.  Such a decision seemed to satisfy all of the stakeholder groups.

Dennis Pavan
Vice-Principal
Notre Dame Regional Secondary


Anna Loch’s Jan 17 article “We can offer love, but can we receive it?” was a very timely reminder to open our hearts to the Holy Spirit and our Lord Jesus Christ to what they may be telling us. 

Eric Inigo
Port Coquitlam


It is always a pleasure to read Lisa Rumpel’s articles. In my 20 years of working frontline with many clients suffering from mental illness, I have greatly come to appreciate a kindness and generosity coming from their hearts that is more developed than in the “regular’ population.

Maybe it’s because most of them have suffered more and had fewer opportunities to polish their egos.

Actually, we have come to understand that we all are on a spectrum when it comes to mental illness. Who can claim to be so perfectly healthy in mind, spirit, and emotions?

Thank you, Lisa.

Marianne Werner
Vancouver