Professor Heinz's welcome and provocative essay serves us all. What we are about is both important and delicate enough to demand being constantly rethought. And Heinz will make us think. Many will find focussed and verbalized in his essay a vigorous defense of what they will wish they had said. And for those who disagree, there is the opportunity and obligation to identify what it is they oppose, and why.

Two disagreements will be expressed here: one is simply a matter of fact, but worth noting; the other is a matter of principle, and is worth debating. The factual matter is simply that, as far as I can detect, the “generally prevailing paradigm” which Heinz laments, at least as it involves “refraining from anything theological,” is not as prevalent on Catholic campuses as it may be elsewhere. The kind of theology that goes on is varied; there may be less of what Patrick Gaffney wants than of what Anne Carr thinks is necessary, but theology goes on. And not all of it can be characterized by either “objectivity” or “neutrality.” Heinz would, I believe, find some of it to his liking.