I was greatly amazed at D. A. Drennen's article, "John Henry Newman -- Two Centuries Later" [TLC, Feb. 18].

Mr. Drennen mentions that Newman "loved the English Church." If he loved it, then why did he leave it? (Was it because the English bishops were displeased with his Tract 90, mentioning that the Thirty-Nine Articles were political, rather than religious in character?) Instead of lauding Newman, we should praise the other leaders of the Oxford Movement such as John Keble and Edward Pusey, who resolved to stay within the Anglican Communion and fight there for increased spirituality.

Newman greatly harmed the English Church by abandoning it for Rome. Although Pope Leo XIII eventually named him a cardinal, the Roman Church never truly trusted this convert. Whereas most other cardinals were "cardinal-bishops" with dioceses of their own to manage, John Newman was confined merely to the "limbo" of being a "cardinal-priest" without much diocesan authority.

Instead of merely listing Newman's strengths, as Drennen did in the article, he should have also listed his human weaknesses. Tell it as it really is!

William D. Keller

Big Rapids, Mich.