It is unfortunate that the writer chose to start the article on Charles Curran with sweeping generalizations that were the equivalent of an urban legend.

To speak of "the Inquisition" as a uniform entity with a uniform response shows a lack of understanding of Church history. It is understandable, given how little is generally known of that time in history and the wide range of procedure, sanctions, and punishment.

Most of the inquisitions were benign, and what the writer referred to as the "terrors of the Inquisition" was standard practice for that day. Granted, it was not a sparkling moment in the history of the Catholic Church, but more careful research would show that the Church tried to soften what civil authority did.

Neither Protestants nor Muslims have a spotless record, but I have yet to see a story, much less a lead paragraph, make reference to past practices. For that matter, one need only look at current news to see stories of death threats to someone who left their religion. But it's not Catholics doing so.

The part about the Catholic Church not having a history of being open to criticism is almost laughable, given the number of people who feel free to criticize. Those criticisms are usually raised by those who mean "The Catholic Church won't do what I want the Church to do." That the Catholic Church stands firm in her beliefs despite various pressures is seen as a positive by many. Standing firm does not equate "not open to criticism."

MARY KAY WINCHELL, ROCHESTER