UNFAIR COMMENT ON 'PYRE' PRIEST

DESMOND ALBROW, in "Priests on the Pyre" (December 20), devoted his entire column to a humorous scrutiny of the inexpertly written English of an anonymous priest. Obviously in this instance the medium mattered more than the message.
To most of us the validity of the writer's viewpoint is of much more importance than the quality of his composition, and there is little joy in a journal produced for the smug approbation of our exclusive "literary" brethren. Admittedly, Mr. Albrow's article was funny, but many of us were laughing at ourselves and our temerity in sometimes taking the slight risk of our metaphorical goofs and asinine alliterations getting into print: yet knowing the unerring goalstopping abilities of editors, we usually feel fairly safe in sending in our verbal stingers. Can you wonder, then, at our consternation when we are faced with the irrelevance of a seasoned professional wasting a column to ridicule some unknown priest engaged in the casual labour of stringing a few words together?
Mick Conway London, S.W.15.
• IAM glad Desmond Albrow agreed with the points brought out in the priest's letter in The Times on the question of celibacy. The contents are more important than the style of writing. There is obviously a worldwide plea to allow the rule of celibacy to be relaxed, The Church loses many priests each year and yet she still insists on a dismissal instead of giving these priests extra grace through Sacrament of Matrimony. Why? What is she afraid of? Who is refusing to abolish the rule? Would it not be more Christian to allow an option in this matter? There is no doubt at all that many priests would he better married for their own sakes and also to he able to understand family problems. No matter how understanding a priest is there is always a harrier which need not be there. I pray that Rome will reconsider this matter very soon and bring a little less unrest in the Church. We must keep all the priests and not dismiss them because of this outdated vile.
N. C. Finlay Rossendale, Lancs.
DFSMOND ALBROW'S column of December 20 hits The Times where it hurts. Even the CATHOLIC HERALD can sometimes be right. How I wish it were more often right!
John V. Simms London, E.
Secular? No
IN his review of December 27 -11. of Fr. Gibberd's book on Liverpool Cathedral, Robert Lutyens tells us that "what can be said without much fear of contradiction is that the new cathedral is essentially a secular building." This I contradict. Just because a building is modern in design it is not automatically secular. Indeed, to my way of thinking, the new Liverpool Cathedral, with its splendid focus on the central altar and the necessary but ancillary services like the bookshop out of sight, is more religious in design than many of the traditional cathedrals in this country, which are more reminiscent of museums, with their long corridors full of distracting bookstalls and statues of historical dignitaries. The new cathedral is contemporary in design and reflects the current desire for greater participation in the liturgy by the whole body of the Church. It is the measure of the greatness of the cathedral that it achieves this aim while remaining a building of beauty and reverence to God.
Peter Freeman Nottingham.