Sacramentally charged.

To anyone steeped in sacramental tradition, Robert Barron's argument "from fittingness" for a celibate priesthood clearly has its appeal: as the Eucharist is "the eschatological act par excellence," the one presiding at this event would be, optimally, a "living embodiment," an icon of eschatological reality. I would hazard a guess that most Catholics, by instinct, expect--or look for in hope--such a sign in those who preside at the church's liturgy. I do; and I also recognize that the quality of the worship is immensely enhanced when the priest is, shall we say, sacramentally charged.

But given Barron's definition of the "form of life" of an eschatological person--one who embodies the "nonultimacy of sex, family, and worldly relationships"--does it follow logically that only a celibate clergy (and male, for that matter--but that is another issue) can adequately signify such a single-hearted love and desire for God--or better, the life-long struggle for such a single-hearted love and desire? Worldly detachment and the holy ordering of desire is the call of every baptized Christian--married or not. In De virginitate, Gregory of Nyssa (married at the time), acknowledges that the married person can face more obstacles/temptations in the purgation of desire; but he does not thereby dismiss or excuse the married person from the ascetic demands of embodying eschatological desire. I have to wonder if Barron and the seminarians portrayed in Paul Stanosz's article still carry too disjunctive a view of married and celibate states. I do not think it would be impossible to discern in a married priest the sacrament of eschatologically oriented desire and love.

Franz Klein gives clear expression to the desire, excitement, and idealism that he and fellow seminarians bring to the choice of embracing celibacy ("John Paul II Priests," August 12). They want to eschew "mundane pleasures" and "practical concerns" and are eager to "marry the bride of Christ as other Christs." Without casting judgment on this fervor and idealism, two concerns sharply emerge. First, should a married clergy be accepted in the church, it seems likely that this group of "John Paul II priests" would sport a sense of spiritual superiority toward their married brother priests--as if their "sacrifice" alone were costly and of value. Second, it seems that the desire for sublime and otherworldly pleasures--as opposed to the practical and mundane--ought to be tempered with a reminder of the reality of parish life, much of which is tedious, repetitive, and very "this-worldly." There is good reason why the church continues to evoke the image of shepherd for those who serve as pastors and bishops.

As for becoming "other Christs" in marrying the church, perhaps deeper reflection on the priest's shifting role in the Eucharist is needed: the priest is a part of the bride and acts in persona ecclesiae as well as in persona Christi. A rather odd and fascinating marriage.

MICHON M. MATTHIESEN

Brookline, Mass.