Sir, - Allow me to take up your correspondent W.G.A. Scott's invitation of "arguments to the contrary" (January 22nd) and reply as briefly as possible for while a falsehood may be born in a sentence, it can often take a volume to bury it.
Beginning with a reference to a different issue, the writer crashes off into a sequence of unsubstantiated and sweeping accusations against the Church. I challenge W. G. A. Scott to provide some clear examples of where the Church has changed "what is told in the Bible" because it didn't "suit." I furthermore challenge him to provide some factual evidence of a "centuries old Vatican policy ... directing Catholics not to study the Bible."
His observations on the Church's rules concerning communion under both species betray a very confused and incomplete understanding of both the technology of the Eucharist and Church reasoning. Moreover, by a startling non sequitur your correspondent implies that the Church has taken upon herself the right to declare Jesus wrong! Surely this literally incredible conclusion alone should have caused the writer to recognise his flawed logic.
Finally, we are informed that "Christ rather surprisingly preached in favour of divorce in certain cases" i.e. "unchastity". Not only, according to W. G. A. Scott, did Jesus allow divorce in cases of "unchastity" but "he favoured it." "Rather surprisingly" - or perhaps not - it doesn't seem to bother the writer that his theory, as well as being solely (and indeed inaccurately) based on one of the most unclear and debated; Greek phrases in the Gospels, flies totally in the face of all Jesus's other teachings on marriage and divorce and the practice of the earliest Christians (see Mk 10:1-12, Lk 16-18, 1 Cor 7:10-11). - Yours, etc.,
Belmont Avenue,
Dublin 4.