The End and the Beginning...

We have arrived at the end of the year 2024, which—even as I write these words—has already changed to the beginning of 2025 in many parts of the world. Global celebrations with parties, fireworks, and food and drink have long marked the end of December and the beginning of January as a "new year" with a new number to designate it.

From ordinary people to news and entertainment media, it is customary to "look back" on the year that has passed, and remark on its significant moments regarding births and deaths, engagements, marriages, achievements, failures, tragedies, wars and treaties of peace, political elections, regime changes, news of [and gossip about] celebrities or other prominent personalities, the top movies and videos, the top songs in popular music, foods, weather, fads, stock-markets, sports champions, "annual" statistics of every imaginable kind, etc., etc. And, of course, all sorts of “projections” for what might happen in the new year. Then, at midnight, people attending parties and celebrations feel that they have "changed"—that they have now been "clothed" with a new year of possibilities, a chance for a new life (or at least a better life) which prompts them to make "resolutions," most of which are forgotten in a few weeks.

Most of these secular traditions have not varied much since I was a boy in the late-1960s-early-1970s. But there are many differences too. I recall being with parents and grandparents, crowding around a twenty-inch screen on a black-and-white television watching Guy Lombardo and his Orchestra play fancy music while "everyone" at Times Square in New York City, watching on TV, and—basically—the WHOLE WORLD waited for famous "ball" to drop and officially declare the beginning of January 1, 1970 or whatever the new number was. 

The year 1970 sticks in my mind from childhood. I was an unusually curious and bright first-grader who learned a few things about "decades" and became fascinated with the idea that "we are entering a new decade!" It felt so expansive, so full of possibilities, this new decade that began in 1970.

That was 55 years ago.

How did we get these day and weeks, months and years? Well, there are of course many different calendars and calendar systems which people still follow in many parts of the world, that belong to their religious and cultural heritage. But the “Global Village” in its interactions and its doing-business (if nothing else) uses a common annual calendar which grew from ancient Roman civilization. The names of the months are Latin-based, indicating gods or numerical points: thus “January” is for “Janus,” who stood for the “gateway” to the new year, while “December” indicated the “tenth” month, which it actually was in the early Roman Republican 10 month calendar (notice that in current usage these “numerical months”  are all “off” by a deficit of two). At some point in the Roman Republican period, the first two months of January and February were added on at the beginning. It was a solar calendar, so the effort was made to correspond to the solstices and—Rome being in the temperate zone—the patterns of the seasons which were important to agricultural societies. Calendars were fine-tuned, days added, in order to keep aligned with the changes in the relationship between earth and sun.

The Romans were good mathematicians, calculating that what we now refer to as a “trip around the sun” took 365 days and a bit less than six further hours. And it was Julius Caesar (who saw himself as a consolidator of the Roman world) who instituted the “Julian Calendar,” which cleverly established the “leap day” once every four years to make up for the accumulations of extra hours at the end of each year. The Julian Calendar is almost the same as today’s common calendar. A solar year is actually 365. 2425 days. It wasn’t unreasonable for the Romans to think that rounding it up to a quarter of a day was “close enough.” They probably never dreamed that the same calendar would still be in use 1500 years later. By then, the Caesarian glitch of putting a little too much “leap” into the quadrennial Leap Year has resulted in a calendar that was 10 days ahead of the actual annual trip around the sun. 

So the math experts came up with a better arrangement for the future by skipping certain leap years (math nerds can look up the details) to bring the recorded year closer to the solar year. This was also important for the Church’s calculation of movable feasts, above all Easter, which was always celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the spring equinox, which was designated for March 21. In 1582, another Roman—Pope Gregory XIII—established the official new calendar by instituting the changes and by subtracting ten days from the month of October of 1582 (just for that year, to put the calendar back “in sync”—thus October 4, 1582 was followed the next day by October 15, 1582). Catholic countries switched to the “Gregorian” calendar first, but eventually all Western countries adopted it as the common calendar.

Then, in the 19th century, the West spread its civil and economic institutions by way of its colonial system all over the face of the earth. These proud “world powers” proceeded in the 20th century to fight a horrible war against one another, then another horrible war with more countries, from which emerged a global standoff that almost literally set the entire world on fire. But people also discovered amazing medical interventions, technologies of all kinds, antibiotics, sanitation, water purification, indoor flush toilets, unprecedentedly rapid modes of transportation, electricity, radio, television, computers, the internet. We also learned from some of our most destructive mistakes (while at the same time inventing new mistakes). The past century-and-a-quarter has been quite a ride. The 20th century in which I was born is loaded with years that are associated with historical events and changes of gigantic significance: 1914, 1917, 1939, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1956, 1968 (oh boy, 1968), 1989 … and it has continued into the 21st century with 2001 [as in September 11], and—alas, I fear the future may regard it as such—2022 (the beginning of a War that is now being fought in Ukraine but may yet flare up [or pause for a “peace deal,” smolder for a few years, and then explode] all over the Global Village in ways we can hardly imagine).

For billions of people, this is not their “primary” calendar and it does not mark today as the eve of the New Year. The Islamic World has a different calendar (though they also use the common calendar for secular and globally interactive purposes). The Chinese “officially” use the Western calendar, but the ancient popular Chinese lunar calendar with its Chinese zodiac is still a strong cultural reference point for a billion and a half Chinese. All these diverse calendars, with their embedded historical traditions and peculiar variations, are fascinating. Still, in the big transportation-communications-hypernetworked world—the world where people travel and buy and sell and trade, or wish they could—tonight is New Years Eve 2024. 

In the 21st century, "New Years Eve" has become (if one wants it to be) an day-long, live-streaming virtual event, where one can "pop in" on many of the large outdoor gatherings in famous cities all over the world and watch countdowns-to-midnight, celebrations, and huge fireworks displays as it “becomes 2025” as much as 16 hours earlier than in New York City, U.S.A. At 8:00 AM this morning, Sydney, Australia was ringing in 2025 with its world-renowned fireworks over Port Jackson Bay. Soon come Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, Mumbai, the Gulf States, Europe with Rome and Paris, then London (where suburban Greenwich still hosts the world’s “official” 0:00 hours clock that sets the standard for the rest of the world). As I write in this moment, 2025 is passing over the Atlantic, so there’s been a bit of a lull on human celebrations, but Brazil is on the horizon: 8 minutes to 2025 for Rio and Sao Paolo.

It is (or will be) 2025 in all those places by the time New York drops the ball in Times Square.

So why do I ramble about all this? The calendar and the years that pass are meaningful for history, for the past, present, and future. They mark the steps of a journey that the whole world now consciously takes at least in a material sense. But why these numbers of this “Roman” Western calendar? The original Roman Calendar (Caesar’s calendar) had “Year One” set at the foundation of Rome 700 years prior to Caesar. Other calendars have other “origin dates.” It’s interesting that what is called the “Common Era” (C.E.) has the number 2025 for the new year. Also, this is the only calendar that counts from the center of time rather than a fundamental beginning. Before the Year One “C.E.” the numbers go backwards: One B.C.E. (Before Common Era), with the previous years denominated 2 B.C.E., 3 B.C.E., etc. Do people throughout the world who use this calendar ever wonder what’s so special about the Year One C.E.? What happened during this seemingly unremarkable year that inaugurated the “Common Era”? What was so important about that year that the prior years counted down to it, and subsequent years continue to be counted up from it? 

We are about to record the beginning of 2025, which means that we are marking (maybe not strictly mathematically, but in a numerically approximate and existentially symbolic manner) the passage of two thousand and twenty five years since… what? 

When I was young everyone was still using A.D. and B.C (“Anno Domini” and “Before Christ” or the equivalent phrase and, if necessary, initials), whereas now these have fallen out of secular usage. Of course, Christians have long concluded by historical indicators that Jesus was probably born around 4 B.C. and that December 25 is a liturgical date rather than a verifiable birthday. So, the numerical precision of the “common calendar” is a “little off” (this is not unusual in calendar systems, as we have seen).  Still, the symbolic reference of the number remains the birth of Jesus Christ. 

This means that whatever we call it, for whatever reason, whenever we say “Happy New Year” we are acknowledging (even if only remotely and implicitly) that the very measuring of time within history is marked according to the central event that gives meaning to the whole of history: God coming among us in the flesh, entering our history, dwelling with us.

After nearly 62 years of this life, I continue to see more and more why the years are aptly marked in this way. It still matters. It always matters.

Merry Christmas Octave! And Happy New Year…

The “Holy Family” and the Christmas Octave

Happy Feast of the Holy Family! Today is the "Fifth Day of Christmas" within the ChristmasOctave. Like Easter, "Christmas Day" is eight days long, a celebration that brings each year to an end and begins the next. 

We continue to rejoice in the Birth of Jesus during these days and beyond. The glory of God's infinite merciful love is made manifest in the birth of this Child, the Word made flesh who has come to redeem and transform us. 

May the light of Christmas continue to shine in our hearts and sustain us in whatever circumstances we face. Jesus has come to be with us!

Merry Christmas 2024!

We don’t have any “whole family” pictures this Christmas, although we have all been able spend time together during the past two days. The “Christmas Season” has just begun for us, in any case. It’s nice  to have “little kids” around again for the holidays. Maria has had lots of fun with presents this year, and food too. Anna is still at that age where she has more fun playing with the wrapping paper than with presents.😉

Christ is Born! These are precious days in the liturgical year—days that are “always new” because the manifestation of the glory of God’s love in the Child Jesus is an inexhaustible event.  God has drawn close to us, irrevocably. He informs all of our colorful, earthy (even kitsch-y) Christmas traditions of color and lights, cookies and sweets, presents and “good cheer” (which endeavors to visit us a little even in the midst of burdens and suffering); He brings His goodness into the smallness of our human ways.

The “Baby Jesus” statue under our tree is the same one as our kids used to hold for pictures when they were little. The collage below the current picture of the baby Jesus takes us back to Christmas 2005, almost 20 years ago, with John Paul, Agnese, Lucia, and Teresa as little kids. Jojo is not there because she didn’t exist yet. The miracle of Josefina was still in the future, as were many other “miracles”—a hundredfold of gifts were yet to come (as was no small amount of suffering).

The statue of the Baby Jesus is a sign of the greatest gift, the all-encompassing gift of God’s redeeming love. The gift of His merciful love endures forever. And the statue has endured (with only one major repair job) through the years of our family history.

Christmas: “Our Destiny Has Made Itself a Presence”

Christ is born. He is here. He has come to be our companion.

The CL Christmas Poster for 2024 is powerful. The quotation from Calvino, representing the search and struggle of an ardent religious sense, is followed by Luigi Guissani’s witness to the transforming power of God’s saving love made present in Jesus Christ. The video linked below gives the text accompanied by a videographic exploration of the angles, light, and texture of one of William Congdon’s paintings of the Nativity. The English translation of Guissani’s text is voiced over by a recording of the inimitable voice of the great Servant of God who founded the Communion and Liberation movement.

I remember this voice well, and the priest who spoke so convincingly, when he was still healthy and vigorous, giving conferences to hundreds of young people, inspiring them to follow Christ. Inspiring me when I was young, and inspiring me today.

“This has happened! Dispelling the fog of habit from our eyes and hearts, we want to return to the great news, the great announcement, the great fact, the great event… Destiny, our Destiny, has made itself a Presence. But a Presence as a father, mother, brother, friend, and—while we were walking—an unexpected companion along the way. A traveling companion: Emmanuel, God with us! This has happened!” (Luigi Giussani)

At Christmas, Ukraine Struggles Against "A Modern Herod"

On Christmas Eve, it’s hard to forget the vast places of the world dominated by violent conflict, or devastated by destructive forces. This article addresses primarily the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine, but the plague of war brings suffering to people all over the earth on this Christmas of 2024. In particular, we must remember the afflictions of the Holy Land. Once again, Bethlehem—the historic birthplace of Jesus—is threatened by the ongoing war in Israel and Palestine, and the instability of the surrounding countries in the Middle East. There will be few international pilgrims in Bethlehem this Christmas, but Palestinian Christians (yes, they exist) are turning out in force, to worship the newborn King and to pray for Gaza and for an end to the horrible assault that continues to rain down chaos and destruction on its impoverished civilian residents, including children. They also marched in a silent procession for peace.

Palestinian Christians are celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace, and praying that He might grant peace to His homeland, where extremism burns like fire in the minds and actions of people on “all sides” of this relentless conflict:

——————————————————

Then there is another monstrous war that will spend its third Christmas bringing bombs, blackouts, and destruction upon the lives of innocent civilians and an entire nation: we must never forget Putinist Russia’s genocidal aggression against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Will this nightmare ever end? Some are placing their hopes on Donald Trump’s “peace plan,” which we know little about except for the self-propagated bravado that always accompanies this man’s idiosyncratic proposals. Who knows? Maybe something genuinely constructive will come of it. I hope so, but I don’t have much confidence at this time. Still, wars are unpredictable. Where will it all lead?

The source I trust most in Ukraine these days is the Office of the Ukrainian “Greek” (Byzantine) CATHOLIC Church. As I have said before, their existence as a Byzantine Catholic Church “sui iurus” but also in full communion with the Roman Church and the Successor of Saint Peter is fully accepted by today’s independent Ukrainian government that recognizes religious freedom. But the same cannot be said of the current Russian Federation. Russia tolerates Latin rite Catholics and even Latin rite bishops in communion with Rome. But for centuries, all Byzantine Christians in Russia’s empire have been subject to the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and the temporal “Caesar” who claimed the imperial succession after the fall of Constantinople, and rebranded his “Muscovite Duchy” as The Third Rome. Imperial expansion was an entitlement, or even a necessity. 

The Soviet era seemed to “change” these claims, replacing them with a universal persecution against religion as such and a totalitarian violation of the dignity of the human person aimed at establishing a materialistic egalitarian utopia. In fact, Communist Russia never totally shook off the “Czar” mentality. The Soviet Union had its own Caesars: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and—of course—the unforgettably infamous Stalin the Terrible. Russian Communism ended 33 years ago, and it can be said that life is “better than it used to be” in post-Soviet Russia and the formerly “captive nations” no longer directly subjugated to Moscow’s iron rule. But there is still a “Caesar” who aspires to restore the Muscovite hegemony of Soviet (and pre-Soviet) Russia. In terms of autocracy and unscrupulous ambition, the current Emperor Vladimir shows no signs of being more trustworthy than the Red Emperors who preceded him.

Dialogue, as Pope Francis reminds us, is necessary. This Russian invasion is an abomination, and must be stopped. It is literally destroying Ukraine. It is also slowly but inexorably pulling down the Russia that Putin himself invented. I have no idea how this dialogue might be carried out honestly and fairly, but many things may yet happen that will surprise us. I pray for a real dialogue, which means I’m praying for a miracle. I’m praying for lots of miracles all over the world, but I do so with hope.

Dialogue is something very different from propaganda, lies, threats, and appeasement. These are the methods and hopes of Putinist Russia. But the ideas and strategies of secularized Western powers are also driven by their own agendas and ever-shifting preoccupations. We must listen to the Ukrainians, who know well enough what is at stake for them here and now. I think the new Christmas Pastoral Letter of the Byzantine Catholic “Major” Metropolitan Archbishop of Kyiv Sviatoslav Shevchuk is exemplary in its way of understanding Ukraine in the light of the Gospel. As head of the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church (he is basically “Patriarch” but without the official title), Sviatoslav has been a courageous Shepherd to his own people and an inspiration to all Ukrainians in the struggle of these times. He expresses with keen insight the recognition of the newness of Jesus Christ as a light that penetrates the deepest darkness. Christ is with us, and is always more powerful than any problems that confront us. And in the face of a war that Sviatoslav Shevchuk clearly understands, the Ukrainian Catholic Primate rejoices in the renewal of faith, Christian love, and mercy that he sees among his people.

I present this pastoral letter below (blue type) in English translation. It is informative, inspiring, and definitely worth reading:

CHRISTMAS PASTORAL LETTER OF HIS BEATITUDE SVIATOSLAV

Most Reverend Archbishops and Metropolitans, God-loving Bishops, Very Reverend Clergy, Venerable Monastics, Dearly Beloved Brothers and Sisters, in Ukraine and throughout the world

"…And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7).

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Beloved in Christ!

The Nativity of Christ envelops us with the invincible power of light and the warmth of God’s love! Today, the Son of God is born in a human body, taking on all the experiences of human life: facing poverty, rejection and enmity, the coldness of broken human relationships, and the darkness of human hatred and persecution. God comes exactly where "there is no place for Him," where man has thrown Him out of his life space and the horizon of his own dreams.

On Christmas night, the spiritual darkness created by man through the coldness of his own indifference and sin dissipates before God’s light from heaven in the Child Jesus, resting in a manger on hay. Under the angelic chant, "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace…" the coldness of man’s alienation from God and his neighbour transforms into warmth by God’s drawing close to man. This is prophesied by the Old Testament prophet Isaiah: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined" (Isaiah 9:1).

At the same time, God drawing close to man in the Nativity of the Son of God gives rise to an authentic rapprochement of man with man, to authentic reconciliation and peace that comes to us from heaven. In response to God’s closeness, which warms and saves life, the shepherds say to each other: "Let us go to Bethlehem!" (cf. Luke 2:15). They go together, seek out and find Joseph and Mary with the Child lying in the manger. Having seen the Child in the stable cave, as they were foretold, they go out and joyfully tell about the wonder they experienced.

The description of this meeting breathes warmth on us. The Divine Child is for us, Ukrainians, the light of God amidst the darkness of war, the warmth of God’s closeness amidst the inhuman alienations of today.

In Ukraine this winter, the enemy wants to turn darkness and cold into weapons of mass destruction, the cheapest in the world! Every night, air attacks of the aggressor methodically destroy our cities and villages, homes and their vital infrastructure, kill civilians. The enemy seeks to turn a flourishing country into an icy desert, exporting to Ukraine the wasteland of its own Siberia. What he cannot steal, he recklessly destroys; those he is unable to enslave, he kills. Wherever he goes, there is no room for anyone—neither God nor man. How much effort he puts into sowing cold, hunger, darkness, and his own spiritual emptiness! One can boldly say this about him with the words of the prophet David: "Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD? There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would shame the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge" (Psalm 14:4–6).

But despite the uncertainty, anxiety, mourning, and grief, we Ukrainians celebrate Christmas, as our ancestors did from generation to generation, even when we were under the rule of the godless communist regime of the last century. In the hiding places of the Carpathian forests, in exile or secretly in their homes, they lit a Christmas candle as a sign of living faith, as a sign of the presence of Christ the Saviour among us. When darkness surrounds us, the light, which is the newborn Lord, shines even brighter! He himself assures us of this: "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life" (John 8:12). And then he makes each of us bearers of God’s light: "You are the light of the world… In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 5:14.16).

The light of the Newborn in the soul and body of our people illuminates a place of hope and invincibility. As darkness surrounds us, may the light of Christmas that is within us become even brighter! Instead of worrying about the darkness, let us light at least one Christmas candle! When we feel cold, let us warm at least one person with the kindness of our own heart, and together we will experience the warmth of God’s love! Let us spread this Christmas light and warmth around us today.

In the middle of the night of prolonged Russian aggression, we, Ukrainians, light up the invincible light of God’s truth and love with our witness. Examples of this light are the self-sacrificing service of our defenders, the self-sacrificing work of volunteers, doctors and chaplains, the numerous expressions of solidarity that we show to our neighbours in need in the daily circumstances of this calamity of war. And a particular sign of the presence of God’s light in our midst are the Centres for Resilience and the treatment of the wounds of war, which were built by the efforts of our faithful and in which the most vulnerable social groups of our society find spiritual and humanitarian support. These centres, which are usually located near our communities, resemble the quiet place near Bethlehem, which St. Joseph found for Mary and in which she gave birth and swaddled the Child Jesus.

In these contemporary Christmas mangers, where thanks to the glow of human solidarity during the blackouts there is electricity and you can warm up, today carols resound! There a place is provided for God, there a place is provided for every person who can not only satisfy his temporary needs but can also renew the lamp of his own heart, in order to shine unto others "with the hope to which the Lord calls us" (cf. Ephesians 1:18), to be a bearer of resilience for the tired.

Today the heart of every believing Ukrainian becomes a hospitable Bethlehem, where Jesus finds refuge, who comes to us in the form of our neighbour in need. It is in the hearts of the sons and daughters of our people who in their native lands or in the settlements, raise their hands in prayer to the sky and extend a helping hand to their neighbour. It is here that the common victory of Ukraine over a modern Herod, who set out to destroy our people, is forged. And so, with faith in our hearts, we can sing a song of victory over the Herods of all times:

Bless us, Divine Child,

Give us today your gift of love

May not the power of hell ever be able

To separate us from You.

Bless us, for we are Your children,

Christ is born, give praise!

(«Na nebi zirka — In the sky a star»).

On this joyful and bright day of Christmas, I greet each of you with the warmth of God’s unceasing presence. With deep gratitude in my heart, I greet our military, volunteers, doctors, energy workers, and rescuers. For several years now, you have been the bearers of hope, tirelessly protecting, supporting, and preserving the lives of our long-suffering people.

I also greet our teachers and educators, who with great dedication in conditions of war not only impart knowledge to children, but also nurture in them a sense of resilience, teach them to be human, even in inhumane circumstances. To everyone who shines with a bright heart in the midst of darkness and projects the warm of kindness in the cold of war and devastation, I express my deep gratitude.

I greet those who are currently on the front line, in the occupied territories, in hospitals. I especially greet those who lost their homes, and those who provided shelter to those in need, whether in Ukraine or abroad, so that they might experience some home comfort and Christmas joy.

With Christ’s Nativity I wish to hasten to those who mourn the loss of the dead and the missing in action, who watch over the wounded in hospitals.

I embrace those who are far from their homeland, parents who miss their children, wives who are waiting for their husbands to return from the front, and children who are praying that daddy will come home as soon as possible.

From the bottom of my heart, I impart on you all my fatherly blessing, and wish each of you, from the youngest to the oldest, the true joy of God’s children, a tasty kutia, a merry celebration of Christ’s Nativity, and a happy, peaceful, victorious and blessed New Year. As long as we are able to shine and warm one another with the light of Christmas, with carols and prayer, no darkness or cold will ever overcome us!

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

† SVIATOSLAV

Given in Kyiv at the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Resurrection of Christ, on the day of our father, St. Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, the Wonderworker, the 6th of December in the 2024th Year of our Lord.

White Candle

The Advent candles are all glowing after the celebration of the Fourth Sunday of Advent. And in a couple of days, the WHITE candle gets lit!

⭐✝️🎄🎁 #Christmas2024

And WINTER Has Come Again…

Happy WINTER!❄️⛅️ It’s COLD in the Shenandoah Valley.🥶🥶🥶🥶 🌲🌲🌲🌲🫣 Burrrrrr!

One thing that I’ve noticed about getting older is that I’m less tolerant of the cold weather each winter. And the humidity in the summer. Maybe this is why some people move to ARIZONA. I never understood the appeal of Arizona (which is, after all, a freaking desert!!!🏜️☀️🔥🫨🫠) until the past few years. Now I know why some folks might wanna live there. 

But I’d rather be cold, close to family, and see the Blue Ridge Mountains year after year.🙂

“O Antiphons” of December 17-19 (Update: 17-22)

Updated: December 20-22 included below:

Joseph Might Not Have Thought What We Think He Thought

 

Because this post never gets "old," I like to run it again from time to time, especially when we read the one text in the New Testament that gives us some idea of the perspective of St Joseph when he first found himself caught up in the events we are preparing to celebrate in the coming days. Thus once again I present, for your reading (or rereading) consideration, this bloggy "digest" of some of my old undergraduate lecture material, entitled "Joseph Might Not Have Thought What We Think He Thought."

___________________________________________

Everyone is familiar with the Gospel reading from today's liturgy. It was all about Jesus being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary... from the perspective of St. Joseph. We think we know what is going on in this passage, but perhaps we assume too much:

"When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins'" (Matthew 1:18-21).

Ah yes, that "touchy" little situation.

Thus we are introduced to St. Joseph, and the testimony of Divine Revelation to this greatest of saints after Mary herself is largely contained in these first two chapters of Matthew (along with some references in Luke 1-2). Indeed, this is one of his most important moments; it is the moment upon which his vocation is founded. What do we learn about him in this passage?

Perhaps it is something a little different from what we initially think. For a person like me, this story might enter into my mind and get mixed around and end up sounding something like this (note well -- the actual words of the Scripture are in bold type; the rest is JJ's imagination coloring in the details):

Joseph her husband, when he realized that Mary must of been... well... unfaithful to their betrothal (which really surprised him since Mary had been so completely, astonishingly, immaculately good up until then) since he was a righteous man, yet [YET?] unwilling to expose her to shame, (in other words he was "righteous" but he wasn't like "crazy righteous" -- the Law said an adulterous wife should be stoned to death [see Deuteronomy 22], but he decided to ignore the Law and let it slide because he was a nice guy,) decided to divorce her quietly. (Mary had this story about an angel and a miracle and the Holy Spirit, but as Joseph himself said in Zeffirelli's movie Jesus of Nazareth [and he must have said it, because we saw it], "That's too much for any man to believe!" But still, he was a nice guy so he was willing to break it off quietly.)Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David [why did he call him that?], do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. [PERIOD! That means the angel finishes his sentence here. Then he takes a deep breath and continues with the next sentence...] For (in other words, after have taken his deep breath, the angel proceeds to explain to Joseph what really happened, setting the record straight that Mary was telling the truth after all) it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." At which point Joseph goes <FACEPALM> "If I had known, O angel, that Mary was really bearing the Messiah, the Son of God, in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, I would never have 'divorced her quietly'! Oh no, I would have taken her into my home and taken upon myself the earthly responsibilities of fatherhood for... you know... God Incarnate...."

Okay, JJ... enough snarkiness. What's the point? Well, the point here is that if I step back and examine what seems to be the common sense interpretation of this text, it starts to raise all sorts of problems. There's not a whole lot of bold type in that long paragraph. I have to make a lot of assumptions, which is not unreasonable since these assumptions are generally made even by theologians (generally, but not universally, and -- as we shall see -- there is good reason for a different reading).

The interpretation fills in details that are precisely not mentioned in the text, but that seem necessary to make sense of it. The thinking is that Joseph is divorcing Mary for infidelity, and he is assuming that her pregnancy is a result of that infidelity (maybe she tried to explain it and he didn't believe her, or maybe she said nothing because of humility, in which case he still must have been somewhat flustered). He is a "just man," so he's not interested in getting revenge against the perpetrator, nor does he want to "press charges" according to the Law, but he also has no intention of covering the whole matter up by taking her in as his wife and presenting himself as the child's father. Then the angel appears to him and tells him not to be afraid to marry Mary because she is innocent and the child has been conceived by a miracle. The child, in fact, is the Savior. Problem solved. The marriage is back on.

Problem solved? On closer inspection, maybe not. Actually we have several problems here. The underlying problem is that we interpret this whole event based on a presupposition that is not in the text. In fact, a closer look at the text reveals that our presupposition (that Joseph is divorcing Mary because he thinks she's pregnant by human agency) is not supported; indeed, the implications lead in another direction entirely.

What I'm presenting here is theological and exegetical opinion, which has been much more precisely expressed by theologians and biblical exegetes (such as, for example, John McHugh, in his fascinating book The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [1975] and Giorgio Buccellati, longtime professor of Ancient Near Eastern studies at UCLA [see e.g. "The Prophetic Dimension of Joseph," Communio, Spring 2006] -- just so you know that my ramblings here are backed by scholarly heavyweights). Scott Hahn refers to the two opinions on this text as the Suspicion Theory (Joseph thinks Mary committed adultery until the angel reveals otherwise) and the Reverence Theory (which is... well, let's see). Scott himself doesn't "take sides" here, but (to my reading) he also leans in the direction of the latter theory (see The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, p. 18).

That will have to suffice for scholarly "apparatus" in what is a decidedly non-scholarly blog post. JJ just wants to outline why he now sees this event in a different light, not only because it makes more sense, but also because St. Joseph is his homeboy. (Really, I don't know where I'd be without him.)

.

Let's take a closer look at this text. Mary "was found with child through the Holy Spirit." What does this mean? Exactly what it says (also in the Greek). Before Joseph took Mary into his home, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Once again, note well that does not say that she was "found with child and claimed that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit." We might assume that the point here is that Mary was "found with child" and that Matthew just adds the Holy Spirit parenthetically. Is this assumption warranted? Let's examine further and see if we really need these invisible parentheses.

Clearly, Mary is with child and Joseph wants to end the relationship. He has no choice but to divorce Mary, since the betrothal is already a binding legal commitment. But he doesn't want to "bring shame" upon her (stoning to death and all that), so he decides to do it "quietly." And all of these assumptions hinge on Joseph being a "just" or "righteous" man, which means that he is a man devoted to the Law (hence divorce) who is simultaneously a man willing to set the Law aside (hence "quietly").

Hmmmm.

The quiet divorce is something of a head-scratcher. Our lectionary translation gives us something that is appropriately bumbling: "Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly." Since? Yet? He was righteous, but...? And while we're at it, let's look at this term that Matthew decides to toss in here: dikaios. This is Greek for the Hebrew saddiq. Such a title is not awarded lightly in the Scriptures. This is a profound and full sense of righteousness, such as is attributed to Noah and Abraham. This is the kind of "justice" out of which radical foundations can be made. Here is Joseph the Righteous.

And Matthew has introduced this term to explain to us (while also confusing us further) the reason why Joseph decided to be kind and merciful to his adulterous wife? Assuming that there's some wiggle room in the Law for this kind of arrangement (and we all assume this, of course), it would seem that a decent man could take this road without much heroic virtue. It hardly requires the righteousness of Noah or Abraham to walk away from an unfaithful spouse, without obligations and with a spotless reputation. The betrothed woman is allowed to live. We assume (again) that the "quiet" will succeed in smoothing over the situation for everybody, whereas in fact it refers only to refraining from filing a public charge. In such circumstances, the woman is still socially disgraced and even cast out of home and family, shamed for the rest of her life. It's not like she can go abroad for a year, have the baby, and then come back with nobody knowing anything about it. This is not the Hamptons. This is a Palestinian village. In 4 b.c. Everybody knows everything. As for Joseph? Not his problem anymore.

But, Matthew tells us, Joseph is not the average man who wants to cut his losses and get out of town. He is saddiq. He is just. He is righteous. The angel in the dream does not rebuke him nor cause some great moral conversion. Joseph is already the quintessential steadfast man. Still, given what we assume to be his understanding, he's not doing anything "wrong." (Or is he being shifty with the Law? Isn't there a better way? Oh gosh what a mixup!)

What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps we can keep all these human assumptions (as many, but not all, church fathers and many, but not all, interpreters have) and still squeeze it all together and make it fit. It's all a big misunderstanding that the angel clears up, to our great relief, by telling Joseph the truth.

If only Joseph had known from the start that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would have been.... ? What "would it have been"? What if?

Consider this possibility: What if Mary told Joseph about the Annunciation, and Joseph did believe her? What if Joseph, the righteous man, totally, totally believed her?

Here also, we are assuming (or hypothesizing) something that the text doesn't come right out and state. But why do we assume that it didn't happen this way? There is nothing implausible about this communication between these particularly extraordinary betrothed spouses. I would think that Joseph would be the first person she would tell. What we do know of Mary from the Gospels indicates that she was humble and obedient, yes, but not timid. She was also practical.

This was something Joseph needed to know. I see no reason why Mary would not have told him the whole thing, right away.

And how far have we really departed from the text in "assuming" this? Matthew 1:18 says "she was found with child through the Holy Spirit." Matthew is giving us Joseph's perspective here (is any other person mentioned?). So who "found" out that she was "with child"? Joseph. And how did he find out? Mary told him. Is it possible that what Joseph "found" was that Mary was "with child through the Holy Spirit"?

"But, but..." we might say, "if he had known, there wouldn't have been any thought of divorce, right?"

On the contrary. In these circumstances we have precisely what we need to make sense of the "quiet 'divorce' of the 'just man'" -- this is where lots of pieces fall into place in a way that I find compelling. It is precisely at this point that Matthew tells us that Joseph is saddiq, that he is righteous with that sense of awe and wonder at the mystery of God; in fact he is one in a million, the man to whom the Lord had already entrusted His most magnificent creation: the Immaculate Virgin Mary. But what has Mary just told him? She has been "overshadowed" by the Most High and has now become, in a new way, the dwelling place of the Holy One. (When Mary asked the angel, "How?" in Luke 1, she got a very clear answer.) Both Mary and Joseph recognized in these terms the references to the Shekinah, the Glory of God who descended upon the Ark of the Covenant, who dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

Only those called specifically by God to the Levitical priesthood were allowed to pass beyond the veil and enter the Holy of Holies. But what was this that had happened to Mary? The Glory dwells in her. It is precisely because Joseph is "Just" according to God's own heart that he would never presume that a human betrothal gave him the right to take the New Ark of the Covenant by his own authority into his home. (I know, I'm coordinating Matthew and Luke here, but I'm one of these people who actually believes that whatever literary genres are being employed in these narratives, their purpose is to convey to us stuff that really happened.)

Joseph learns that Mary is "with child through the Holy Spirit" and that she has received a new, divine vocation. But he has had no revelation from God, no new vocation that corresponds with Mary's. What can he do? He is a "righteous man" and is able to understand that Mary has become a bearer of God's Glory. Surely, the Lord will make His will known for Mary and this extraordinary child. The Lord will assure that Mary is protected, no doubt by someone worthier than Joseph himself. The only role Joseph sees for himself here is to release Mary from the obligations of the betrothal (yes, the word for "divorce" can be understood in this way) to make room for whomever God chooses. Of course, Joseph will do it "quietly," secretly, because it would be manifestly more than unjust to expose Mary to shame. It would be wicked. "Joseph, since he was a righteous man" (1:19) would never do such a thing. He will release her right away, and keep her secret to himself.

For his own part, Joseph is filled with awe and humility. He is full of that eminently righteous gift which is the fear of the Lord. No doubt he wonders about many things, and is probably confused and "afraid" in the emotional sense. But above all, he is surrendering Mary to the mystery and the freedom of God's plan.

This is his intention when the angel appears. And here more things start to make sense. The angel says to him, "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home." The "fear" indicated here is the kind that the human person has before the mystery of God. The "Suspicion Theory" has no way to explain this fear. If Joseph thinks Mary's pregnancy is ordinary, it's hard to see what he would be "afraid" of even in a purely human sense. He would be opposed to taking an adulteress into his house, not for any reasons of fear, much less the fear of the presence of God. He would be concerned for her dismal future. He would have no fear about himself; he has done the right thing.

But the angel invokes that fear in the presence of God and relates it directly to Joseph taking Mary into his home. That would make perfect sense if Mary in fact has the presence of God within her in a wholly new and unimaginable way.

But how do we account for the angel giving Joseph the news of Mary's miraculous conception in a way that seems "fresh" if he already knows about it? Isn't there a divinely inspired PERIOD that divides 1:20? "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her." These two sentences do sound like the angel is relieving Joseph's "fear" by informing him that Mary's child is in fact of the Holy Spirit. But we've seen that this fact is the only meaningful reason for Joseph's fear in the first place.

Here's where we must realize the limitations of translation. The New Testament was written in the common Greek of the first century, with no word spacing or punctuation. Many terms that have various possible renderings get standardized by translators for a variety of reasons. Frankly I'm not a New Testament scholar or a Greek scholar. But here I'm relying on John McHugh (see above) who is both. McHugh says that it is legitimate to read this verse in a different way, pulling out the punctuation that isn't there in the first place and using some unwieldy clauses which don't sound great in English but render the sense more accurately.

The result is that the angel's words to Joseph actually emphasize that Joseph's knowledge of the miracle is the cause of his fear. What we should read here goes something like this: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account of the fact that it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. Now that makes sense.

And there is a hint here too of what the angel's real purpose is in this vision: "Joseph, son of David..." he says. It's interesting that this narrative begins at verse 18. Yesterday we read the first 17 verses, which are a genealogy from Abraham through David (the King to whom the promise of God is given) to Jesus. When I hear the genealogies being read, I am tempted to zone out. I am even tempted to open Matthew's gospel and just start at verse 18. But this genealogy does catch my attention (and might cause consternation) because after all these carefully recorded names we arrive at "Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born" (1:16).

Wait! If Joseph is not Jesus's biological father, then what good is the genealogy? In fact, it's a lot of good, and it sets the stage and indicates the focus of the narrative that follows. Kingly inheritance passes from father to son in the Hebrew tradition. Mary's lineage has no legal significance and it is the legal claim to be a descendant of David that is necessary for Jesus to inherit the Davidic kingship and fulfill the promise. But there was no human father! The inheritance can only be handed on if a descendant of David steps in and acts as father to Jesus (we say that Joseph "adopts" Him, but I'm not sure that we have an entirely adequate term to describe the sui generis role that Joseph is called to play).

"She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus" (1:21). Now we know what this angelic visit is all about. The angel is giving Joseph his specific vocation; he is conveying God's authorization (indeed His command) that Joseph enter into a unique service to this new Shekinah, this new presence of God in the world: that he take his wife into his home without fear, because he, Joseph, is the one called by God to take on this responsibility. And he is called to this because he is a "son of David" and he therefore passes on the earthly line of the Messianic king to Mary's son, to whom he gives the name of Jesus.

Personally, I'm convinced. This has gotta be it. Remember that Scott Hahn called this the Reverence Theory, and I think we understand why. It's simple. It makes everything fit together. It's consistent with the details Matthew gives us and fits better into the context. It explains Matthew's statement that from the beginning Mary was "found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." It accounts eminently and in every respect for Joseph's title of saddiq, right in the place where Matthew introduces it (without resorting to casuistry about the Law, or a murky sense of what Joseph was up to or what human problem he was afraid of, or having to posit this odd, tense, and mistrustful beginning of the Holy Family).

The "Reverence Theory" corresponds to the singular sanctity of the man, St. Joseph -- always obedient, always steadfast, always following God's will and trusting in His wisdom. That is the St. Joseph I know, and I have no reason to believe he was ever otherwise.

The Latest News From Papa-land

"Papa-land" is a silly term to use as a reference to my experience of being a grandfather (i.e. "Papa," a name that follows a family tradition on the Janaro side). 

"Papa-land" is actually funny because I use it with "the girls" (our little granddaughters) and the 3+ year old Maria - who is a born wit - has grasped the humor (such as it is) and has taken it up herself. The girls usually play together when they come to our house on Sundays and Mondays, but sometimes Maria is doing a project at the table while Anna is on Eileen's lap having a book read to her (or some other arrangement) and I'll say, "What's happening in Maria-land?" Without missing a beat, Maria responds, "I'm painting!" Then she'll look at her sister and say, "What's happening in Anna-land?"

She "gets" my humor, and already has her own quips, observations, and ways of teasing Papa. We banter about things. I enjoy reading to her and "explaining" some of the background of the stories, which she usually finds engaging. Meanwhile Anna is already clearly her own person. She's mellow and sweet (at least when she's with us), and always ready to smile and give hugs. She doesn't say much (yet), but when she sees something that catches her interest, she focuses on it and moves toward it to check it out. Like most one-year-old toddlers, she has a surprising quickness in moving and grabbing things. One can't take one's eyes off her for a minute when she's crawling (and now just beginning to walk) in a room. We surround her with lots of toys, but she'll grab my water bottle if I do much as blink.

Of course, Big Sister is never too far away, and she takes care of Anna. Maria talks to her and explains things to her; she has already embraced her mentorship role.

Their parents are doing very well raising them. To me, their Papa, they are an astonishing gift. I hope that I can "share their dreams" for a future that will probably span the rest of this century. How will their lives unfold and develop? I don't know, but I’m amazed and grateful that they’re here now:

I tried to make a little video with Anna. This is already a few weeks old (right after her first birthday on November 28). She starts talking to the camera near the end of this video, and shows us a little of what "Anna-land" is all about:

Rejoice, Rejoice!

 Gaudete Sunday. “O Antiphons” coming up! Then... Christmas!⭐

Saint Lucy Signals the Approach of Winter

According to old "Julian calendar," Saint Lucy's Day was the shortest day of the year. 

.

Byzantine iconography has the 4th century Sicilian martyr holding a cross and a lamp, as "Lucia" means "light." This ancient liturgical prayer shows her to be a young woman who loved Christ above all, as the bride loves the bridegroom: "O Jesus, your Lamb Lucia cries out to You with great love: 'O my Bridegroom, I long for You in great pain. I am crucified with You, and in baptism I am buried with You. I suffer for Your sake in order to reign with You, I die for You in order to live in You. Accept me as an immaculate victim, since I am immolated for Your love.' Through her intercession, O Merciful One, save our souls!" (Troparion for the Feast of St. Lucia, Byzantine Liturgy.)