Needless divide.

Paul Lakeland's defense of Roger Haight ("Not So Heterodox," January 26) poses questions about ecclesiology, soteriology, and ecumenism that deserve thoughtful consideration. But the contrast Lakeland sets out between pre--and post--Vatican II apologetics is needlessly exaggerated.

Like Lakeland, I am old enough to recall how some apologists interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the 1940s and '50s. But I also recall the trouble Fr. Leonard Feeney got into by insisting on a rigorist interpretation. While the record all the way back to patristic times includes quite varied pronouncements, it hardly justifies ignoring traditional teachings about issues such as invincible ignorance and baptism of desire. (Whether such language most aptly deals with the underlying concerns is another matter entirely.)

Lakeland's rather overdrawn picture of triumphalist preconciliar apologetics does fit in well with his use of Mel Gibson as an anachronistic exemplar. Misnamed "traditionalists" like Gibson seek to exalt the Catholic tradition by impoverishing it.

JULIAN IRIAS

Davis, Calif.