Whoever wrote the article on the primates' open letter [TLC, March 21] no doubt had to fit a lot into a small space. Perhaps this explains two assertions which, I expect, no one at TLC really meant to make.

The primates, the article states, were sad and disappointed about "statements of discord within the Anglican Communion and sympathy for Bishop Griswold's situation." Sensitive men indeed, these prelates, if all it takes to make them sorrowful is a statement sympathizing with our P.B.

Yes, I know. Far from being saddened, they made their own statement of sympathy. But in order to realize that they did, one has to read twice (at least). Inserting "their" before "sorrow" and again before "sympathy" would have fixed the problem.

Similarly, one has to read twice before realizing that the actions to which the primates felt obliged to address themselves are not "actions disputing Lambeth resolutions as grievously wrong." That the Lambeth Conference passed resolutions which were grievously wrong and, as such, disputable is an opinion some Episcopalians do hold. Are they to infer that disputing these resolutions as just a little bit wrong would be approved by those who signed the letter? I surmise that what the primates were feeling was instead "an obligation to address, as grievously wrong, actions disputing Lambeth resolutions."

(The Rev). Charles Hefling

Theology Department

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, Mass.