I commend Wittberg on her useful critique of my article's taxonomy of U.S. Catholic church job markets. Her comments represent a good first response to the need for more research on the topic. In addition, she introduces some data on the frustrations experienced among nuns doing parish work (Heslin, 1983; Joseph et. al, 1980; Schneider, 1986) not available when I wrote the piece. In particular, her suggestion that nuns in parish work represent a kind of proletarianized primary sector introduces good grist for the mill of research and theory. Wittberg's discussion of my article's "conceptual difficulties" begs comment. I assume its mention is unnecessary, but will underscore the observation that labor market theory still struggles through the early stages of formulation. Since its proponents seek to analyze work in categories other than those routinely furnished by the U.S. government, labor market theory wrestles with the formulation of muddy concepts like "market segment" (Edwards, 1979) and "mobility chain" (Piore, 1975). Although a potentially rich source of research and theory, almost no one would suggest that dual labor market theory has achieved compelling theoretical clarity (Piore, 1975; Zucker & Rosenstein, 1981; Granovetter, 1984). In addition, while it promises considerable payoffs for examining the interplay between locus of job (e.g., parish, school, hospital), role (e.g., religious educator, liturgist, campus minister), and ascribed characteristics (e.g., sex, ordination) in church work, labor market theory needs molding to "fit" the unique context in which church workers operate. Indeed, some measure of conceptual slippage will probably result from such finagling. Humbling though it be, those attempting to weave an intelligible framework with which to better understand the dynamics of church jobs must use what data become available when they emerge, note the areas of apparent contradiction, and redo the concepts where indicated (Kuhn, 1973; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Having seen Wittberg's additional information on the experiences of nuns in parish activities, for example, it appears confirmed that some sorting mechanism pushes nuns working specifically in parish settings into a less advantageous position than priests in the same settings. Yet to describe this lesser position as a secondary labor market, as Wittberg and I have appeared to suggest, may not prove the most felicitous way to correct the apparent discrepancies in the earlier model's depiction of parish work as primary sector. Rather, following Edwards' (1979:179) schema for cross-referencing job clusters with types of organizational control (see Figure 1), we can construct a model where virtually all professional church jobs fall into the "Primary, Independent" sector, but where control procedures differ. Because of parishes' relatively smaller staffs and the distinction of ordination retained by the (usual) priest-pastor, we can hypothesize that the possibility exists for either "Simple" (i.e., personalistic sub-