On Devotion to St. Joseph

Yesterday we celebrated the Feast of St. Joseph. If some of our friends across the Tiber find devotion to Mary appalling and offensive, they find devotion to St. Joseph maybe not as offensive, but even stranger. How do we Catholics venerate a man we “know” so little about? We never once hear him speak in the Scriptures. He leaves no great prayers such as the Canticle of Zechariah or Mary’s Magnificat. Indeed, once the “action” in Christ’s life begins, Joseph is absent, and assumed dead.

I would counter that while there is little knowledge of the events of Joseph’s life, there is a lot of information we can glean from his character. The biblical evidence is overflowing with details of the kind of man Joseph was, and this information is incredibly relevant for Catholics today, especially men. As centuries passed, the Church started to come to an even greater understanding of these facts which have been plain to see, having “once for all been delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)  Far from being unhealthy, the devotion to St. Joseph calls us to emulate those aspects of his character.

What are these aspects? Let us first consider how the Scriptures introduce Joseph. St. Matthew’s Gospel tells us:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit: and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins…..” When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the lord commanded him, he took his wife…

There has been great debate throughout history how old Joseph was. I will avoid this debate, and only point out that his age, while an interesting historical discussion, would not change the “facts on the ground” as it were. While Protestants might find the perpetual virginity of Mary unheard of, such was not unheard of in Israel at the time. Women took vows of virginity, even becoming married. (Jewish exegetes understood the “afflicting” of Numbers 30:14 to be able to refer to total abstinence in marriage.)

The scriptures first describe Joseph as “a just man.” Let us ponder that statement. Joseph, as one who was to be Mary’s wife, could have had several emotions and thoughts upon learning about Mary’s pregnancy. He could have viewed it as a sign of infidelity, since she had been with another man before marriage. (And even being engaged to him while doing this!) He could have viewed her vow of virginity worthless. He could have worried about the harm done to his own person and reputation. The child could be viewed as his, and Joseph would have been engaged in fornication, something they could both die for.

We hear instead that Joseph resolved to put her away quietly. He wanted to deal with this in private, and make sure that Mary was not shamed in the process. Even when he may have had power to exercise by right (Joseph could have exposed her and shamed her in public, and nobody could have faulted him given the knowledge of the facts at the time) but yet he chose to be merciful. He exemplified the statement of St. Paul “all things are lawful, but not all are expedient.” (1st Cor 6:12)

While patiently considering his options, we find in Joseph the trait of obedience. After he receives word from God to take Mary as his wife (that indeed what was happening was God’s design) Joseph does so without asking any questions. Had he resolved all the internal questions he had? It is impossible to say. What we do know is that even if such conflicts existed, he was willing to trust in God. He readily subjected himself to God, even knowing the risk this posed.

We know elsewhere from Scripture that Joseph was known as a carpenter, and that he used his trade to support a young Jesus. If we remember from Genesis, part of the curse inflicted upon Adam was that of back-breaking toil. Yet Joseph takes this curse and turns it into a blessing. He restores the original purpose of “work.” Adam was given charge by God to till the Garden of Eden. One could say that Adam was meant to uphold God’s creation. When he was working, he was working in God’s service. Joseph uses every ounce of work he does to see to it that Jesus is cared for and loved.

This patience and obedience are reiterated when Joseph flees to Egypt to protect the child. We know that Joseph was of the House of David. His ancestors were the great kings of Israel, though they had long lost their power and mandate to rule. With his flight to Egypt, a man who was born into a royal household must abandon everything of his homeland and hide in a strange country. He had to risk giving up his income with his job. He placed himself and his entire family at great personal risk traveling through a dangerous land. Yet we never see him questioning the command from God. He has a job to do. He must protect Jesus with his own life if need be. His very purpose in life is to raise the boy in the ways of the Lord. His other purpose is to protect his wife at all costs. His needs and desires are a distant third. The proclamation of St. John the Baptist could also be applied here:  He must increase, I must decrease.  (John 3:30)

I believe there are also a few speculative reasons we have such a devotion to St. Joseph. I say speculative because the information is far less available, but nonetheless true. In Joseph’s situation, we find our own. We are joined to Christ “not by flesh, or by the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13)  Christ and Mary were united in the way that a child takes physical traits and characteristics from their parent. Joseph was united to Christ solely by the will of God. Likewise, we Christians are joined to Christ solely through grace. We could never approach Christ and say “See what I have done, by rights I deserve to be counted amongst your family!”

Through Joseph we can best fulfill the commands of Holy Scripture. We are called to give everything we have to Christ as a “spiritual sacrifice.” (Romans 12:1) St. Joseph did this in offering everything in dedication to the child he was placed over. An additional command comes from the Blessed Virgin, when she prophecies that “from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed.” (Luke 1:48)

What better way to show her honor than by imitating the man who was her husband? Who knows how to honor a woman better than her spouse? In the Wisdom literature, Wisdom was presented as a woman for precisely this reason. The authors understand (through the Inspiration of the Spirit) that a man will sacrifice everything for a great woman, and will use everything in his service to honor her. Do we think that Joseph did any less to his wife? What is the highest praise that you pay towards a godly woman? You speak highly of her husband. As Leo XIII rightly points out in Quamquam Pluries, devotion to St. Joseph is certainly one of the best ways to bless Our Lady (outside of adoration towards her Son, the Savior of the human race.)

This is why we invoke St. Joseph as the “Patron of the Universal Church.” No human outside of Jesus and Mary understood the plight of the people of God better. And no male outside of Jesus can better show us how to properly honor the Father in Heaven in obedience to His divine command regarding His Son and the Blessed Virgin.  Like the child Jesus, may we always place ourselves under the patronage and protection of the "just man."

Sancte Ioseph, ora pro nobis!


For further reading on St. Joseph, one may read John Paul II's Redemptoris Custos and the masterful work of Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries

When Did Continence Become a Dirty Word?

When I introduced the concept of the "Death of the Catholic Male", one commenter was quite perturbed that I claimed many Catholics have contributed to it through their incomplete presentations of the Gospel.  I stand by this assertion, and I believe that a recent article vindicated my assertion.

In an essay over at Catholic Exchange, Bill Donaghy wrote:

We were not made for law; we were made for love. However, when it comes to living out our eros, our God-given passion for all that is good, true, and beautiful, it seems many of us don’t even equate it with Christianity anymore. We feel that eros is less than holy, and are content with continence, not consummation – so we divorce passion from purity and just tough it out, trying to stay clean, in a kind of legalistic contract with God that will keep us on the “Big Guy’s” good side.

In a certain sense, Mr. Donaghy is certainly correct.  One of the greatest problems inherent in human nature is our refusal to embrace what we were called to be.  St. Cyprian of Carthage (along with Augustine) talk about how one of the greatest difficulties to embracing the Gospel was that they were holding themselves back from becoming what God truly wanted them to become.  Once they came to the light of the Gospel, they were tormented by their sins and indiscretions, and would not advance forward.  They finally realized that God says "I will remember their sins no more", he meant what he said. 

Yet God was never content with a mere forgiveness of their sins.  In addition to forgiveness, God brings about a restoration.  Yet that restoration can be hard to accept.  We are indeed called to the eternal consummation of all things in Christ.  So if we understand Mr. Donaghy's words in this sense, he is indeed correct.

Yet I believe he is missing a vital part of the story.  Is there really meant to be the separation between "continence" and "consummation" that Mr. Donaghy talks about?  I submit it is precisely this distinction in the world and the Church at large that is one of the greatest reasons for a decline in not only an authentic understanding of our masculinity, but an authentic understanding of the human person in general.  One cannot reach the point of consummation without continence.

Ironically, Mr. Donaghy cites all we should need for this understanding, but misses the point entirely.  He quotes John Paul II's Novo Millennio Ineunte, where the Pontiff said the following:

“It is a journey totally sustained by grace, which nonetheless demands an intense spiritual commitment and is no stranger to painful purifications (the “dark night”). But it leads, in various possible ways, to the ineffable joy experienced by the mystics as “nuptial union.” How can we forget here, among the many shining examples, the teachings of Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila?”

A brief understanding of history tells us that these individuals understood continence quite well.  John Paul II engaged in "the discipline" of bodily mortification and intense fasting.  St. John of the Cross underwent intense purification in the natural and supernatural realm.  Near the end of his life, the majority of it was spent in a very cruel captivity by his rivals.  He died of injuries that his captors refused to treat.  Mr. Donaghy treats the Christian spiritual life as a life of enjoyment.  These individuals would disagree sharply.  While one receives great spiritual consolations at times, other times the soul receives an intense feeling of loss and suffering.  Both are used by God in purifying the soul.  This spiritual purification is inevitable.  We will go through parts of it now, and we will undergo it in Purgatory.

In their coverage of the Theology of the Body, many popular commentators almost entirely ignore the Theology of the Cross.  Put simply, we are fallen creatures.  As a result of that fallen nature, we have sinful tendencies, especially in regards to selfishness, that we understand as concupiscence.  As a result of original sin, this will always stay with us.  Even though Christ has indeed redeemed us, our selfish natures remain, albeit (hopefully!) in a diminished form.  As we are conformed to the Image of Christ, the effects of concupiscence are slowly but surely defeated.

Why is it slowly defeated?  When we are restored in Christ, we are restored to our original calling.  We were indeed called to the consummation, but original sin did a lot of damage to our participation in that calling.  Instead of directing our hearts towards union with God, we direct them towards increasing our own power, fulfillment, etc.  The remedy for this is the Cross, and only the Cross.  "Whoever does not deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me cannot be My disciple."  So says our Blessed Lord.  While sin and concupiscence exist, the Cross tells us they need not be our masters.  We can deny the influence they have over our lives through that same Cross.

Yet in order to do this, we must begin to renounce that past life, and live a life towards our calling.  Sometimes, we even renounce those things that are good normally, because they might not be fitting to our new calling.  Earthly food is good, helps nourish the body physically.  Yet at times, we are called to fast and abstain from certain foods, as an ultimate reminder that "not by bread alone" does man live.  Our true food is that of the love of God, given to us on earth principally in the Blessed Sacrament.  Where is this understanding in the thought of Mr. Donaghy?  He would seem to counsel us to eat and drink, since all food was made clean by God and given for our benefit!

So why does this lead to a decreased understanding in authentic masculinity?  God knew we would need help.  One could say He wired the desire for discipline and sacrifice into our very natures.  Even in the secular sphere, our politicians and athletes sacrifice constantly.  Very few athletes like watching film for several hours a day.  They'd rather be out playing, or enjoying their time away from the field, "living the good life" as it were.  If they could have it their way, many of them probably wouldn't like having to live such a strict diet and exercises regime.  Yet they understand they have to do it if they want to succeed.  St. Paul himself compares the Christian life to that of the athlete, who brings his body into subjection to compete, lest he find himself disqualified.  (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Take away continence, and you take away part of man's nature.  He also will never find true fulfillment.  Indeed, he is rejecting the very language written into his mind, body, and soul if he thinks continence is not necessary, if he has somehow passed beyond it.  That will not occur until we have finished the race.  Acting as if you have won the race before you actually cross the finish line is a sure way to lose it.

The Death of the Catholic Male: The Roots of Human Nature

When we discuss what I term "the death of the Catholic male", we must discuss two things first.  We must look at the roots of human nature, and how that nature has been corrupted by the adversaries of truth.

The question concerning man's purpose has been one that has been disputed at great length throughout history by philosophers, theologians, commentators, etc.  While it is true enough to say that our ultimate purpose is to know, love, and serve God, I'd like to go off into a different area.  What kind of creature is man?

The world says sometimes that man is a "sexual" creature with reason.    Everything is to be defined by our sexuality, whether it be the act itself, who we are as men and women (in a purely rationalist way), etc.  Other times, man is a creature of utility.  The worth of man is defined based upon what he contributes to society.  Other times, we are viewed as economic creatures, and more importantly creatures of class.  Our dignity is based upon our social status, and what class we belong to.  (Whether it be the caste of nobility or the socialist theory.)

There is a hint of truth to all of these theories, but they are ultimately lacking.  The church responds by pointing out the fact that man was not only made in relation to God, but in relation to fellow man.  When the Earth was created, Adam was given dominion over all creation.  Yet this did not define man.  What defined him was his special creation in God's status.  There was a certain uniqueness that separated him from the animals, namely the endowment of human reason.

This in and of itself however still does not define man, or make him complete.  While God saw His creation as "very good", we also hear "it is not good for man to be alone."  Now many will see in this statement and what follows to be God's plan of the call to communion between man and female.  While certainly true, I think this ignores something just as important.  When God creates Eve, He creates another human from the rib of Adam, from his nature.  Eve would possess the exact same dignity and special status as Adam.  More importantly, every human being on the earth from this point onward would share a similar inherent dignity, with rights according to that dignity.  From this very small moment civilization and society are born.

Here we see the greatest separation from the animal kingdom.  Combined with reason, our relationships with other beings constitute something essential to human nature.  This is the first and fundamental truth of masculinity.  There are those who believe that the most desired trait is that of "independence."  We see this in concepts of the ubermensch  to the concept of the "independent woman" so rampant in today's feminist culture.  Each in it's own special way preaches an individual over and above the other, having no need of relationship.  For as Nietzsche says "What is the ape to man?"  So we are called to be in relation to others.  The "independent woman" is feminism's answer to Nietzsche.  She too may rise above the primitive concept of communion with others.  She can do everything herself, and has no need of anyone to support or help her, certainly not a man!

The Christian understanding rejects both for a variety of reasons.  One is ultimately our status as created creatures.  We cannot be the source of everything.  This fundamental limit even in our first parents (before the entrance of original sin) had dramatic ramifications for civilization.  Strong as Adam could become, there would always be certain things he was incapable of doing.  Even those things he could do, there would be some Eve was better at.  Likewise, in society there are always certain things that one person excels at, and another person excels at something else.  Only through relationships with others can man really achieve anything.

Flowing from these differences, structures naturally develop.  Yet the ultimate end of any structure was God.  This meant that our actions had to be done in accordance with His will ultimately, not ours.  The pursuit of power in a man can never bring about true fulfillment.  Therefore in the masculine nature, there is an inherent sense of obedience to something greater.  While both men and women possess this, it is something far more profound in the man.  When the Roman Centurion gives his humble prayer to Jesus, he then describes how his life is defined by nature of command, whether commanding others or himself being commanded.

The modern world rejects this idea.  Obedience is to be constantly challenged.  If one is to suffer obedience, it is only to be until they can rise past it.  It is one tool like many that are in place until they can be overcome.  If the part of submission is to be resisted (in men and women alike), that of being a Dominus is to be encouraged.  In Latin, Dominus means Lord or Master.  The secular concept teaches us to use (and abuse) everything for the fulfillment of the self.  Whether it be using another person to satisfy urges in lust, exploiting a worker to increase your bottom line, lying to accomplish a goal, society really doesn't condemn them with any strong moral voice, if they are condemned at all.  The weaklings deserve it!  That person exists to fulfill my urges, my "needs".  The worker should be lucky he has a job at all, the ends justify the means!  The byproducts of this mindset are crystal clear in the 20th century.  We saw the eugenics movement (those who are a burden to "society", meaning the self, should be "put down"), the horrors of communism (where millions were massacred under the guise of "advancing" society, which typically meant the ambitions of the ruler), and the modern-day child sacrifice of abortion (a child I did not plan holds me back, I cannot be held back by anything or anyone.)  All of the attempts to resolve the problems this mindset creates, from a secular standpoint, have been found wanting, since they are ultimately arbitrary.  Those standards which have been imposed by one individual can simply be changed at will by another individual once they assume power.

Only with the Christian Gospel (almost all of these tenants are also included within Judaism, being that we both rely on the Old Testament/Torah) contains a way out of these traps for society, and for masculinity.  By emphasizing our status as created beings, we recognize our ultimate limits, and that there is a standard to which in the end we are accountable to.  Alongside this we must emphasize the importance of the individual dignity inherent within each individual upon creation.  The first principle guides our relationship to the second.  We cannot do something to another simply because it is within our power to do so.  Since all humanity was created for each other mutually, we cannot obtain complete "independence" from another, nor is it desirable.

In future columns we will examine this understanding more in-depth, by analyzing from the perspective of truth the concepts I mentioned above.