Letters to the Editor
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Hero or Sham
To the editor: While Jimmy Fowler’s article, “Loving Dissent” (Jan. 11, 2006), did a good job of bringing up some of the issues regarding Catholicism vis-à-vis progressivism; it was still a little too “gushy” for a news report. The article makes the same mistake that other news stories covering left-wing Catholic clergy often make, and that is the overuse of “heroic” descriptions.
This is what makes the article “gushy.” At least it did not go so far as to totally vilify the Catholic Church throughout the work as other such pieces often do; however, if the goal is to instruct and inform the general public on these issues, then this article fell short.
For example, Fowler chose to interview largely those who seem to already believe as Father Curran does, which does not give balance to the story. A more balanced selection of interviewees would have done a better job of explaining why the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches, and in turn, this would have provided a better understanding of exactly what it is that Father Curran is rebelling against.
If Fowler’s intent was to praise Curran for being a heroic rebel, then he succeeded spectacularly. However, such slanted praise hurts the credibility of the story, making it easier to blow it off as a “puff piece.” Who was the audience Fowler was writing for? The slant put a crimp in an otherwise fine story.
John P. Araujo
To the editor: I read the article on Charles Curran by Jimmy Fowler. What trash. The article was very poorly done. It is one-sided, defamatory, and intellectually impoverished.
The writer obviously knows nothing about either the Catholic Church or its teachings and authority. Suffice it to say that Curran was sent packing as a professor of Catholic theology because he took money collected in Catholic churches, promised to teach the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church, and then lied and taught the teachings of Charles Curran. After more than 25 years of this, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, finally realized that Curran would never teach authentic Catholic doctrine. Ultimately Curran was, surprise, told that if he could not teach Catholic doctrine at a Catholic university, then he must leave. A majority of U.S. Catholics find Curran a fraud, too cowardly to leave the Church he hates.
Curran is no hero. He is a second-rate theologian and follower of liberal Protestant theological relativism, and he has caused untold damage to the Catholic Church and its faithful members.
Finally, spoiled, egotistical theologians do not “piss off” the Supreme Pontiffs of the Church. They offend and hurt them by their disobedience and pride. However, reporters do “piss off” faithful Catholics with their prejudiced, ill-prepared attacks on the Catholic Church and Holy Father.
Robert J. Gieb
To the editor: When I read the letter “Curran’s Non-Fan Club” (Jan. 25, 2006), I had to take a second look at the cover of the Jan. 11 Fort Worth Weekly. Was there, lurking behind those spectacles, a horseman of the apocalypse, a veritable “architect of disaster?” For Kreitzer’s sake, say it isn’t so!
Seriously, are we to believe that Father Curran has been pushing for promiscuity (Ms. Kreitzer cites “the depressed 19-year-old ... who has incurable herpes after 33 sexual partners” — duh! Can you say lack of sex education?) and spurring on abortions (she cites “the 26-year-old ... whose husband pushed her into an abortion ... It killed the marriage.” What marriage? I see only an abusive relationship.) She claims these two cases are the “fruits” of Father Curran’s philosophy. Really?
Though her concern be sincere and her compassion commendable, her conclusion that the plight of these women results from Curran’s work is beyond far-fetched. Such simplistic, extreme, black-and-white thinking permeates her entire letter. No small wonder that Curran’s questions about gray areas, areas up for discussion, elicit such a fearful response. Thus, in Ms. Kreitzer’s world, Curran morphs into an “architect of disaster,” while Pope Paul VI is elevated to the status of “prophet.” Progressive Catholic thinkers are caricatured as “advocates of birth control, abortion, sodomy, etc.” and the writer, Jimmy Fowler, has “an agenda, part of which [is] Catholic-bashing.” Even Fowler’s journalistic integrity is suspect because “everyone quoted ... was a dissenter.”
In all fairness, Fowler quoted the Vatican, an archbishop, and others who most certainly are not dissenters. Further, he wrote that Curran “does not endorse so-called abortion on demand, nor the decision of anyone to engage in casual, multiple-partner sex.”
Hmmm ... who is really doing the bashing here? Do people in Virginia routinely read and critique local alternative weekly papers from Fort Worth? It seems Ms. Kreitzer fails by the very criticism she levels at others.
To the Weekly, long-overdue thanks for all that you do for our community.
To the editor: In Dan McGraw’s “On Second Thought” column about the race for Democratic Party county chair between Doreen Geiger and incumbent Art Brender (“Dem Divisions,” Jan. 18, 2006), Mr. Brender is quoted as saying that Ms. Geiger “never financially committed to a candidate.” This statement is not true. I know that Ms. Geiger made several contributions to campaigns supporting John Kerry. Perhaps Ms. Geiger prefers to financially support specific efforts rather than generalized PACs.
I expect that Mr. Brender checked the 2004 campaign reports in coming up with his statement about what Ms. Geiger has done. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t seem to know that reporting requirements exempt contributions that do not exceed a minimum limit. Ms. Geiger could have contributed a total of $2,000 to various efforts to defeat Bush without ever making a single contribution large enough to put her name on any list of contributors.
Maybe Brender doesn’t think small contributions count. Or maybe he made this statement knowing full well that it was not true. His campaign seems to indicate a high level of desperation, stemming from the fact that his performance as county chair over the past 10 years makes it impossible to campaign on his own record.
To the editor: I have generally found your Last Call column to be witty and informative. However, I was profoundly disappointed in the “Rainbow Connection” piece (Jan. 11, 2006) that discussed several establishments the writer referred to as “gay/lesbo joints.”
The writer’s use of derogatory terms and reinforcement of stereotypes was tasteless at best. To begin with, the incessant use of the word “queer” to describe the LGBT community as well as the bars they choose to frequent was inappropriate. While some in the gay community have reclaimed the word “queer” as an inclusive word for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, many others find it offensive. As for the references to “gay/lesbo” bars, I don’t see why the writer couldn’t exert the little effort to type out the word lesbian rather than using this odious abbreviation. Additionally, the last sentence of the column refers to “closeted homo Jim Morrison.” Unlike the term “queer,” use of the word “homo” is not a gray area. It is patently offensive.
The column may not have been written with any intended malice, but it still reinforces stereotypes about the LGBT community. Last Call wrote, “You know the old saying: two steps forward, one step back.” The maxim would seem to hold true for the Weekly’s respect for its readers.
Think Twice on Terri
To the editor: I am hearing statements along the lines of “It’s time for a change” in our district attorney election. However, in regard to the candidacy of Terri Moore, I would ask the citizens of Fort Worth to consider this:
Moore made her reputation by breaking up a large child pornography ring. She made statements to the media about child pornography “feeding the depraved appetites of pedophiles.” However, in 2005 she served on the defense team of a man described in court testimony as one of the most prolific child molesters in Fort Worth history — Wirt Norris! (“A Long and Twisted Road,” June 1, 2005) Moore sat close to him in the courtroom, her arm around his shoulders in sympathy and support — comforting him during wrenching pre-trial testimony by numerous men who testified that he had abused them when they were 11 or 12 years old.
The price was right for her in this case, so she aligned herself on the side of a serial pedophile. Moore lost all respect from those who formerly worked with her to prosecute the child abusers in our community. I would not vote for her for dog-catcher after seeing that her ethics are for sale. She overlooked the depraved appetites of a pedophile, since he had plenty of money to pay her a generous retainer fee.
Please consider that there are character issues at stake before casting a vote for change just for change’s sake.
Email this Article...