Thank you for sharing this!

Cheryl: Thanks for all the hard work you're doing to promote our book. I have to say that my experience with POD at Bezalel has been great. I've been particularly impressed with how hard you work to promote your titles ... you are as proactive as many traditional Catholic publishers at promoting your books!

Heidi Hess Saxton
Editor of Canticle (http://www.canticlemagazine.com/).
Author of "Behold Your Mother" and "Raising Up Mommy" (http://www.christianword.com/).

Heidi,

I am blessed to work with such authors as yourself. As you know, my grandfather is currently in hospice and my own copy of Behold Your Mother has been my constant companion in both my time with him but also in bringing me a sense of peace about this time in my life.  Your book has been a blessing to me and I thank you for it.

Cheryl

Cheryl, I'm sorry to hear that your grandfather is ill.  The bond with a grandparent is like no other.  I will pray for your family.

Heidi and Cheryl,

I was very surprised to see the line about the Blessed Virgin Mary "Taking care of Jesus (and possibly Joseph's children from a previous marriage as well)." I thought the speculation of Saint Joseph being previously married and having other children was accepted as one of those untruths that circulates. Enjoying the challenge of research, I found the following.

1. All references to the possibility of Saint Joseph being married and having other children are found in apocrypha. There are no officially recognized documents that support this.

2. "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (a well-respected and, more importantly, authoritative source) includes the following about the stories of Saint Joseph's other marriage and children: "These dreams, as Saint Jerome styles them, . . . are void of authority . . ." So we have a trustworthy source concluding the stories are void of authority and a Doctor of the Church referring to the stories as dreams.

3. CyberCatholics.com examines the subject of Saint Joseph's previous marriage and other children and concludes it is a myth. I note that Catholic Culture, which is a very well-respected organization, gives CyberCatholics.com a "green" overall rating, and an "Excellent" rating for "Fidelity."

While the article will no longer be on the CE "front page" tomorrow, it will be in the archives. I sincerely think it should be edited to remove the offending reference.

With our Risen Lord,

Bill

Having come--twice!--to Catholicism from Fundamental/Evangelical Protestantism, may I throw in my 2 cents?

I've had a very difficult time reconciling myself to the doctrine of Joseph and Mary living a celibate marriage for a number of reasons.  My biggest dilemna has been that The Law prescribed having as many children as God was willing to send.  Hence, the embarrassment/feelings-of-failure of women like Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth. 

And then, there's the question of Jesus being an only child.  As one myself, I can assure you there are advantages, but the disadvantages outweigh them.  On the other hand, Jesus is Perfect, and I most certainly not........

My point here (!), is that Fundamental/Evangelical Protestants are  taught and encouraged to read the Bible in a way Catholics still are not and, remarkably, that's where the answer is!  Go back to Jacob the Usurper who became Israel.  His 12 sons, although born of 4 different women, were still brothers because Israel was their father.  Each of those 12 men had sons, and those sons had sons, and their sons had sons......and eventually you have the Book of Numbers!  Whether they had a word for "cousin" doesn't really matter when you grasp the inter-connectedness of the families.  (Those of you who are "seniors" like me can surely remember a time when every mother on the block was a "mother" to you and if you were "bad" at her house, she not only whaled on you as if you were one of hers, but, long before you ran home, your own mother already had the other mother's side of the story and you got punished again!)  If Jesus' "brothers and sisters" weren't family-of-origin siblings, they certainly were ancestral ones.

Hello Cooky,

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I do not have a lot of time to write a lot, although your message expresses several misunderstandings for which a more detailed response would be helpful. So my brevity may make the message appear harsh — actually I hope to teach and help you — and hopefully you will use these comments as a base to examine our Faith more deeply.

You do NOT have a choice but to accept the teaching of the Church about Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Forget about the "intellectual snobbery" of trying to "reconcile yourself" — don't waste your time or energy. Mary's Perpetual Virginity is the Second Marian Dogma approved by the Council of Lateran in (I believe) 649. You do NOT have a choice about deciding whether or not you accept a Dogma of the Church. Not to do so is a serious sin.

Regarding your "point" — "My point here (!), is that Fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestants are taught and encouraged to read the Bible in a way Catholics still are not and, remarkably, that's where the answer is!"

YIKES! This is too much and conveys a considerable misunderstanding of Catholicism and a fundamental difference between Catholicism and other denominations. Catholics will NEVER be taught to read the Bible in the way Fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestants are taught. You are referring to "Sola Scriptura." Catholicism rejects that completely. You write ". . . remarkably, that's where the answer is!" The problem with the Fundamentalist/Evangelical approach here and your comment about "the answer" is that if 1,000 people read the Bible, you can have 1,000 answers. You are NOT accepting a basic tenet of Catholicism if you embrace Sola Scriptura. The Church (and not-so-incidentally the Bible itself) teach that we need Scripture AND (capital "T") Tradition. Rejecting this and embracing Sola Scriptura is against Church teaching, which is always sinful. We need the Church as the authority to help us understand the Bible. Frankly, I think it is absurd that some people think they are are smarter than the collective wisdom (thousands of individual years) of theologians. I would be concerned if I had to read and interpret the Bible on my own — the way Fundamentalist/Evangelicals do — that I might misinterpret something and insult God. I am thankful I can rely — WITH COMPLETE AND TOTAL CONFIDENCE — on the Catholic Church to help me understand the Bible.

With prayers,

Bill

Bill,

Heidi's book does carry an Imprimatur from the Lansing, MI diocese.

Cheryl

Hi Cheryl,

That may be, but it would not be the first time an Imprimatur would be incorrect.  After all, they are given by human beings who are capable of error, even if it is unintended.

While I want to believe all items given an Imprimatur are thoroughly and completely reviewed, with the heavy, heavy workload most people have, especially Bishops and other Diocesan officials, I would not be surprised if reviews are not thorough and complete, especially for works like this, which while very good and helpful for us on our Faith Journey, are not textbooks or other official documents of the Church.  I wonder how much scrutiny these types of documents are given.

If the statement (I do not call it a fact) about Saint Joseph having a previous marriage and children is included in Heidi's book, I humbly and sincerely suggest she go back to whomever provided the Imprimatur about this item specifically.  If he says it is okay, I suggest she check with several other expert sources who are loyal to the Magisterium.

I believe all references to members of the Holy Family are very important and are not trivial matters.  My sincere belief is that after researching the issue Heidi would want to edit future editions of the book to eliminate this reference.

With our Risen Lord,

Bill 

Hi Cheryl,

I should have included in my last message responding to your reply to my first message that I still believe the reference to Saint Joseph's previous marriage and other children should be removed from the article in the Catholic Exchange archives because it is at best questionable, although I sincerely believe it is erroneous.

Based on what I see on Catholic Exchange, I believe the site tries to remain faithful to the Teachings of the Church, and this is an aberration.

With our Risen Lord,

Bill

Bill,

This Imprimatur is actually the second given to Heidi as this is a second edition of the book.  The first Imprimatur was given years before with whole sets of different people and different eyes.  So even if we rightly attribute possible problems with the Imprimatur process due to work load and the like, we must at some point feel that a book given an Imprimatur twice, years apart, warrants our confidence in reading it and knowing that it holds nothing in opposition to Church teaching or contrary to the Magisterium. 

Additionally, Heidi's comments about the "possiblity" of other children of St. Joseph's is simply a real recognition of many Scripture verses like Matthew 13:55-56.  Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly no cause for CE to edit the statement.

Having said that, I do appreciate your personal concern in regards to this matter and hope that in some way I've alleviated your worries as I, too, care about Mother Church and remaining faithful to Her.

As a sidebar, reading your comments to other posters, I believe you might enjoy an article I write for CE titled "Oral Law."  It is archived under my articles.

Blessings,

Cheryl

Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for the response.  I did read your other article . . . in fact part of my morning ritual for about the last five years is reading the three featured articles on CE.  (In fact, I have not missed an article — the few times when I have not had access to a computer, I went to the archives to read the articles at a later date.)  Most of the time these articles are great — and I like the variety offered — but every once in a while, I find a where-did-that-come-from?-statement, as I still feel about the comment on Saint Joseph.  Not to belabor a point (and this will be my last comment on the subject), but the verses from Matthew have been explained many times as limitations in the language.

I enjoy your Our Jewish Roots series . . . sometimes I envy (hopefully not to the sinful level) our Jewish brothers and sisters who have converted to Catholicism, because they typically have such a great understanding of our Jewish roots.

I did just take a quick refresher look at your article on Oral Law and got a small chuckle . . . the only reader comment following that article was from cooky642, the person to whom I responded above.

With our Risen Lord,

Bill 

Bill: We are required by Church law to assent — and I do wholeheartedly and without reservation -- to the Marian dogmas declared by the Church. However, the Church has never declared St. Joseph's Perpetual Virginity, despite the fact that St. Jerome had strong opinions on the subject. Therefore, as I understand it, there is room for debate — as there has been almost from the beginning — as to how at the same time Mary could remain a virgin while there be some known as the "brothers of the Lord."

I disagree wholeheartedly that it is necessary for me to submit the work elsewhere, as I have followed the proper chain of command and submitted the work to the bishop's office. Part of the beauty of the Catholic Church is being able to trust those in spiritual authority over us; I do not need to run around and collect majority opinion (as I did in my days as a Protestant). I can trust the Holy Spirit to guide me through my bishop. I'm sorry if that sounds facile, but I believe the Lord has set these men over me, and it is not up to me to second-guess them.

This article (http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp) at Catholic Answers might interest you (see par 5 under "The Holy Family") ... although they acknowledge that the "most common" interpretation is that the "brothers" were cousins, it also held that up until the time of St. Jerome the "sons of the widower" position prevailed.

The Protoevangelium, as you point out, is not in the canon ... however, there are any number of traditions that we accept from it (such as the names of Mary's parents) that are not recorded in Scripture. And so, there does seem to be sufficient grounds to support what I have written. (Of course, should the Church ever declare that St. Joseph was in fact always virgin, I would IMMEDIATELY change the text.)

Thank you for your concern. I apologize for the silence — I confess I did not see the comments until moments ago, when someone suggested I take a look. God bless you! 

Heidi Hess Saxton Editor of Canticle (http://www.canticlemagazine.com/). Author of "Behold Your Mother" and "Raising Up Mommy" (http://www.christianword.com/).

Heidi,

Thank you for the reference to the information on the Catholic Answers (CA) web site. I have often used this site for my education, verification, and clarification.

No need to apologize for your silence . . . I had a nice exchange with Cheryl.

While I did write in my last message to Cheryl that a comment I made in that message would be "my last comment on the subject," as a consultant (sometimes I cannot separate my professional life from other aspects) I cannot hold back from responding to your analysis, which I believe is incomplete, of the CA article.

You refer me to paragraph five, which is interesting. But, it is very important to note that in the article you cite, there are paragraphs six through ten that follow paragraph five. Paragraph five states "Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ 'brothers' who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. " The conclusion of the CA article, which is reasoned in the paragraphs six through ten, CLEARLY REFUTES this theory.

Paragraph six begins: "Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four 'brethren' who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three." (emphasis added.)

The final paragraph of the article states: "This identification of the 'brethren of the Lord' as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed . . ." The final sentence reiterates that the main point of the article is to show that these others were not the Blessed Virgin Mary's children, and in doing so concludes that they were Jesus' first cousins or relatives more distantly removed. However, the combination of the first sentence of paragraph six (". . . most commonly accepted view . . .") and the lack of any mention of the possibility of a relationship to Joseph clearly shows that the CA article's conclusion is as stated in the first sentence of paragraph ten: these were "Jesus’ first cousins" or "they might even be relatives more distantly removed."

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but with

1. the only references about Saint Joseph's previous marriage and other children only in apocrypha

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia saying the stories about Saint Joseph's previous marriage and other children are "void of authority"

3. the Catholic Answers article simply referring to Saint Joseph's previous marriage and children only as a theory "prior to the time of Saint Jerome" and then going on to conclude that the Biblical references were to cousins or more distant relatives (with no mention of a possibility of being Saint Joseph's children)

my conclusion remains the same.

I agree that without a dogma, Magisterial teaching, or other authoritative source, there can be debate on a topic. However, with only apocryphal comments (and this is the extent of the reference in the CA article you quote), I think the mention of the possibility of Joseph having been previously married and having children is a bit of sensationalistic journalism to elicit a "Wow-I-didn't-know-that!" response.

It's been an interesting discussion and we can probably agree to disagree.

With our Risen Lord,

Bill

Dear Bill: Thank you for your concern.  I really do appreciate it, and did not read it as "harsh".

As to your declaration of dogma, I've been a Catholic longer than I was a Protestant, and I understand exactly what I need to do/say/believe to be a Catholic at all, much less a "good" one.  I learned early and well the position of the Church, and the reasons She supplies for what She believes/advocates, and I can teach it up-down-and-inside-out (and, have done so).  My own personal problems with it are not something I share often precisely because of the reaction you gave me. 

As for Sola Scriptura, you misunderstood me (rather quickly, it seems to me).  I am not and do not advocate Sola Scriptura.  What I AM advocating--and will continue to do--is a right relationship with history.  History helps us understand where we are now, and where we are going.  History explains why the Church has set certain doctrines in granite. 

The Scriptures (aka, the Bible) are not an enemy of faith or of reason.  I was hoping to encourage others to open up the Bible and get better acquainted with it.  Such a drastic action does not make anyone a Protestant.

Oh, for heavens sake. If I were interested in "sensationalistic journalism," I wouldn't have bothered with an imprimatur — or, frankly, to have written the the book at all. Such a characterization is insulting. I'm not the first to raise this possibility, and I doubt I shall be the last. When I get to heaven, if it turns out I was mistaken I shall gladly apologize to St. Joseph, who I am sure will respond more charitably than you have done here.

The book is about MARY, her life and motherhood, and I wrote it in order to help people to cultivate a relationship with her. We honor St. Joseph, and yet from the beginning his relationship to Jesus was qualitative different from that which His mother shared with Him. It was he who protected Jesus ... but she who gave Him His human nature. For that reason, her Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity were an absolute necessity.

If it were as important for us to believe that St. Joseph was also a virgin (rather than merely continent within marriage), the Church would have declared it so. They haven't, and you haven't proven otherwise. As for the rest, I'd like to simply reiterate your own observation:

"I agree that without a dogma, Magisterial teaching, or other authoritative source, there can be debate on a topic."

If you don't mind — and even if you do — I'd like to leave it at that. God bless you!

Heidi Hess Saxton Editor of Canticle (http://www.canticlemagazine.com/). Author of "Behold Your Mother" and "Raising Up Mommy" (http://www.christianword.com/).