Flawed responses.

Robert Barron's response to his critics was remarkable for both its content and tone (Letters, September 23). His critics had raised concerns, hardly unrealistic, about the perennial risks of overemphasizing the separateness of priests. Msgr. William H. Shannon objected especially to a "cultic vision" characterized by "an almost exclusive focus on the priest as a cultic figure." He did not, as far as I can tell, deny the legitimacy of the cultic priesthood as such. He did question the language Barron had chosen, which seemed to stress the priest's "unique capacity" rather than the gift of the Spirit. For his pains, Shannon got a lecture on instrumental causality. He and one other critic were then gratuitously implicated in an alleged "Nietchzcheanization of the ecclesial conversation" and patronizingly advised to read "more Dorothy Day and less Michel Foucault." Right, and while we're at it, maybe we can all reread John L. McKenzie.

Of Franz Klein's comments in the same issue, it is almost enough to say that Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic priests, who have for centuries somehow muddled through, some married, some celibate, might be surprised to learn this seminarian's uncompromising verdict: "Either priests are celibate or married. We can't have it both ways." Klein also distorted what Lucy Fuchs wrote about her life as a nun, characterizing it simply as an "unsatisfactory experience", he managed to ignore what she wrote about the way marriage made her love more inclusive, not less.

JULIAN IRIAS

Davis, Calif.