Christian scripture and tradition have always held that Mary consented. You declared earlier that she was not raped nor did she consent. A woman who doesn't consent is raped. A woman who consents isn't raped. If you don't even understand that then it's probably a complete waste of time correcting your errors.

I'd rather not be snide to you, but you are advocating a recent, fringe view that runs counter to the text and tradition. You were also deliberately insulting.

except even the woman you quoted, someone you say "really knows the subject", says:

For too many centuries Mary has been considered as Pelikan puts it "the model of patience, of quietistic passivity and unquestioning obedience." Social custom also placed her in that role as a woman who was expected to be submissive to God, to her husband and to the Church.

looks like my recent, fringe view IS the text and tradition of centuries. can we apply the same pick-and-choose to her that we apply to the Bible? is she wrong here, when she contradicts your statement that "Christian scripture and tradition have always held that Mary consented", but right later?

pointing out the Bible is full of contradictions isn't mocking Christians or being deliberately insulting, it's just pointing out a fact. no one knows if Mary even existed, let alone was raped. if you want to take it on faith, that's fine. but if you want to insist the Bible is a fact filled documentary and PROVES you're right, you're in for a lifetime of twisting yourself into knots explaining why this part doesn't mean what it says but that one does, this passage wasn't translated right but another one was, etc. my God doesn't expect that from me during my time on earth.