Madam, - Your homilist G.F. seems to have missed out on some important texts of the New Testament when writing about Mary, the mother of Jesus (Thinking Anew, August 7th).
He tells us that "she was a conscript, involuntarily pregnant." This is of course in direct conflict with Luke's text, where Mary demands more specific information about the task she is being requested to undertake. When she has got that information, her reply is not merely to declare herself "handmaid of the Lord," but "let what you have said be done to me."
Conscript? Involuntarily pregnant? Quite the opposite: Mary accepts the proffered task with full knowledge and consent.
Again, we are told: "it (the pregnancy) seems to have owed little to her faith and piety." Elizabeth's greeting to Mary negates this statement: in five brilliant verses, Elizabeth extols Mary's virtues, ending significantly: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be fulfilment to the things spoken to her by the Lord." The whole passage is an eulogy of Mary's faith and piety - in the best sense of both words. And Mary's self-deprecation in the following verses (the Magnificat) serves only to highlight these same virtues of faith and piety.
I note that The Irish Times declares as its policy "to represent as wide a range of views as possible within the constraints of libel and taste." I think good taste might have drawn the editorial red pen through several passages of G.F.'s contribution , such as the reference to Mary's "family of boys." And the (to millions of Catholics) offensive remark that "Mary was neither sinless nor ever-virgin."
Thinking Anew was an inept heading for an idea that was rejected by the undivided Christian Church somewhere around the fourth or fifth century.
It was a pity G.F. did not get to read An Englishwoman's Diary (same page, same day) before writing his/her piece. Heather Ingram got it right. G.F. got it wrong. - Yours, etc.,
Father JAMES GOOD, Douglas, Cork.