I am leaving a 1-star review solely based on the ridiculously poorly written and argued chapter on why the author believes that St Joseph was a perpetual virgin. While the author acknowledges that many saints have stated the view that St Joseph was an older, widowed man with children from his previous marriage, he only quotes the saints who hold his viewpoint, chiefly saints Jerome of Bethlehem and Thomas Aquinas. Also, he equates the Protoevangelium of James with the gnostic gospel of Thomas, which is incredibly in poor taste, especially as, it seems, the author’s only issue with it is that it presents St Joseph as being older. Let it be known that the Protoevangelium contains the first written testament towards Mary being a perpetual virgin, not only in her being a consecrated virgin, but also in that the birth of Christ did not destroy her physical virginity. Secondly, this text contains the story of Mary’s entrance into the Temple, whence her aforementioned vow of celibacy was made and began, and which is celebrated in the Church on November 21 (in the Byzantine churches this is one of the 12 Great Feasts). Also, the Protoevangelium is the earliest text to both give us the names of Mary’s parents, Sts Joachim and Ann, in addition to being the earliest telling of their childless marriage, of their being an aged couple, of the conception of Mary (historically celebrated on December 9, prior to the Roman Church changing this in recent times) and the nativity of Mary (celebrated on September 8).
My point with all of this is to highlight how the West’s denigration to the Protoevangelium of James is quite ridiculous, especially as it is only in modern times when the West has even sort of tried to universally present St Joseph as this younger consecrated virgin. Yes, some saints in the West have stated this over the years, yet the presentation of Joseph in even western sacred art has historically been that of an older man.
Also, in this chapter, the author engages in absolutely ridiculous biblical “interpretation”, in trying to use Old Testament typology to argue for St Joseph being a perpetual virgin. He cites the instances of Old Testament men telling their wives that she will be introduced as his sister to the rulers of realms in which they were passing through; and, he then comically extrapolates from this that this bolsters his views regarding St Joseph. Never mind that the Old Testament men who did this did so out of cowardice and a lack of virtue, not because of it.
Also, the author ridiculously argues if Joseph were not a consecrated virgin that it would be sinful for Mary to expect him to not have sex with her, as she was a consecrated virgin herself, because it was his “legal right” to have sex with his wife. Seriously, this is so absolutely bonkers of an interpretation, that I seriously can’t wrap my head around why it has become so en vogue for this to be a hill for modern, western Catholic writers to die on.
Even sadder is that so many Catholic laypeople eat these kinds of books up as if they’re gospel truth.
St Joseph is an amazing saint and a powerful intercessor; but, I am so tired of these books, mostly newer, presenting a version of him that can largely be called Catholic Fan Fiction™ more than anything else, let alone historical.
The issue, I think, largely stems not from their insisting that St Joseph was younger or even that he was a virgin himself; but, they argue this as if it is of theological necessity, essentially presenting it as if it is the definitive teaching of the Church (I have heard some Roman Catholics state that these views of Joseph should be formally promulgated as dogma by the Magisterium of the Church).