Ruof on Keeler
At Sun writer Richard O'Mara's encouragement, I spent careful hours writing a personal reflection gleaned from my 35 years of friendship and knowledge of Archbishop William Keeler. My thoughts were meant for possible inclusion in Mr. O'Mara's profile of the cardinal (Nov. 26).
His casual quoting of my words represent a distortion of what I had carefully expressed.
It was insufficient and wrong to select one out-of-context sentence calling Archbishop Keeler "a man of compassion" and "a good listener." The reality is not so simple.
My reflection had three parts that boil down to the following message. Let me spell that message out again, this time devoid of any nuance, lest the central point be missed:
1. In my experience William Keeler used to be, certainly in his earlier priesthood, a fine listener, a respecter of conscience and a man who valued other points of view in the church. I personally experienced such caring attention.
2. William Keeler, archbishop of Baltimore, is not such a good or available listener today. He, especially, does not hear the voices of the loyal opposition within the church.
These many voices comprise a thoughtful, church-loving, growing body of women and men who are expected by an increasingly remote church leadership to stand mute and unrecognized on the margins of church life.
I speak of women, the divorced and remarried, the homosexual community and 110,000 married priests such as myself. There are more.
These groups of faithful Catholics add up to, perhaps, 65 percent of church membership. And no, we do not experience respect, compassion or a listening heart from Archbishop Keeler.
3. The entire church of Baltimore needs a William Keeler who will recover the listening ministry of an earlier priesthood.
We wish Archbishop Keeler well, because the church needs Cardinal William Keeler to listen to all the voices within the church. We need Father, Bishop, and now Cardinal Keeler to listen with preferential, or at least equal, intensity to the many subdued voices at home in Baltimore as to the few powerful ones in the Vatican.
One final thing in Mr. O'Mara's article needs correction. In choosing to marry I in no way "left the church." Nor did I leave the priesthood. The church embraces both married and unmarried priests -- and they, the church.
Frederick C. Ruof
Baltimore
Safe Cyclists
Roger Simon's commentary on the effect of Maryland's mandatory motorcycle helmet law (Dec. 4) is a misleading and biased article based on half-truths and slipshod analyses.
His attempt at humor and portrayal of motorcyclists as irresponsible individuals displays an attitude of a misinformed individual pertaining to the real issues.
His inference that the helmet law is the reason for the reduction in fatalities and accidents is flawed.
Granted, wearing of the helmet might increase the chances of survival.
But wearing of the helmet has no effect on preventing accidents. Most likely, proper education and responsible driving would have a greater effect in reducing accidents, which in turn would reduce fatalities.
Ever since the establishment of motorcycle safety training courses throughout the country, including Maryland's course, motorcycle fatalities have shown a significant decrease, while the number of states which still allow the choice of helmet usage has remained constant.
In fact, states where there is not a mandatory helmet law in effect are consistently among the top 10 regarding motorcycle safety.
Contrary to what Roger Simon implies, motorcyclists are responsible citizens who represent a cross-section of society.
They hold jobs, pay taxes, raise families, vote in elections, own property and businesses and contribute to society. Also, they are just as likely to be covered by private insurance as anyone else. This is contrary to the definition of public burden.
Motorcyclists are responsible adults who assess and assume risk daily just as all members of society do.
The riding of a motorcycle assumes a certain risk. Motorcyclists have increasingly taken steps to minimize the risks by wearing protective clothing, attending safety training courses and vocalizing that the choice of how to deal with risk should be an individual decision.
That choice should include the wearing, or not, of a helmet as a protective device.
Merrill Paden
Bel Air
FEMALE-R
I have to take issue with Susan Reimer's column Dec. 4, about angry white men voting in the Republicans in the last election. I'm 49 and female and have always voted Republican.
I was born in the gutters of Baltimore City and have had to work for everything I have. Nobody gave me anything, and I'm sick and tired of government taking it and creeping into every corner of my life with the liberal politically correct stuff.
I smoke, own a gun, my family owns two businesses, I'm Catholic (religious right). So you can see I'm attacked from all ends, PC'ers, government regulations and taxes. And I am sick of it.
I'm for gun ownership, less taxes, less government intervention, free speech, Clarence Thomas and totally against liberal socialist totalitarian government. Just call me female Republican in capitals.
Judith A. Ketterman
Woodbine
Shoddy Editing
This letter is in response to the article in The Sun Nov. 27, "Publication of outdated class paper puts writer's life, career in turmoil."
As an Essex Community College alumna, I must say that I'm appalled at the college's attitude about the timeliness and inaccuracies of printing a three-year-old article about the nursing shortage.
As a public relations professional, I know the first rule is to check an article's content and accuracy, especially in the consistently changing health care arena. The editor's excuse of using the article to "fill in a hole because it was in the file" is inexcusable.
As for Linda Haller, I understand how humiliated she must feel. At one time or another in this business, we have all been misquoted.
But if she is really interested in getting back on track and using her skills in the public relations field, I suggest she try it again. I worked my way up the PR career ladder, and it wasn't easy. But at this time in my life, it's truly worth it.
If she were to apply for one of our internships, she certainly would be considered on an equal basis with other candidates.
Debbie Bangledorf Holter
Baltimore
The writer is a media relations representative at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center.
Dogs and Dining
I enjoyed Daniel S. Greenberg's column "Dinner with Dogs" (Opinion * Commentary, Nov. 29), and it brought back wonderful memories of our recent French vacation and the myriad dining experiences in fine Paris restaurants and quaint, arbor-covered cafes and restaurants in Provence, where dogs were very much in evidence and all seemed very well behaved and properly supervised.
The house dog at Auberge de la Loube, in Buoux, roamed free and made friends with the diners, never imposing where he wasn't wanted.
However, I don't think America is ready for this. (And sanitary conditions have nothing to do with my conclusions.)
Perhaps Mr. Greenberg's dog, Ben, is a well behaved and gentle Lab, but imagine being in a restaurant with parents who can't control their rowdy, unruly children also assaulting us with their barking and obnoxious dogs.
Bon appetit!
E. Webb-Sonne
Baltimore
Taking Sides
I find Michael Olesker somewhat hypocritical in his Nov. 27 column about "taking sides."
He laments that "we insist on seeing the worst in everybody who isn't just like us . . . and throw it in their faces."
Yet, throughout his column he does that very thing.
With one or two exceptions, he selectively attacks Republicans and conservatives using phrases such as "backwater bilge . . . stir up the venom . . . every midnight fear . . . petty things . . . the mean manipulations."
Talk about "taking sides."
Richard T. Seymour
Baltimore
Ballot Questions
Questions, questions. Who is going to compare my voter registration signature of 40 years ago with that on my current voting card -- an enthusiastic Sauerbrey volunteer such as St. George Crosse (mentioned in a recent Sun column)? How much is all this going to cost me? It is obviously requiring time and attention from state employees.
Thirdly -- a question sparked by the William Donald Schaefer photocopies in The Sun's example -- what level of illiteracy or disability is permissible in an election judge?
Mary O. Styrt
Baltimore