Tuesday, October 17, 2023

Mauro Gagliardi on the Immaculate Conception of St. Joseph

  

. . . Saint Joseph, like Mary, could have been preserved from original sin in light of his vocation as Guardian of the greatest treasures of the Father: Jesus and Mary. It would indeed seem more fitting that the most pure and perfect creatures who ever appeared on the earth would be entrusted to a man without the disordered desires that are a consequence of concupiscence. If this hypothesis were verified, it would be the case that God decided that under the same roof with Jesus and Mary there lived a most pure man not only in behavior, but also in thoughts and desires (free of the concupiscence that comes from original sin). A biblical basis would again be the attestation of Saint Matthew according to which Saint Joseph was “righteous.” We have to remember that the hypothesis is not excluded a priori by the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because the text speaks of a “singular privilege” of Our Lady, consequently, even if this is a privilege presented more as unique than rare, the chosen formulation does not in itself absolutely exclude that God could have conceded to somebody else this entirely exceptional grace. (Mauro Gagliardi, Truth is a Synthesis: Catholic Theology [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2020], 537-38)

 

However, we need to say that, recalling a text of Pius XII, Saint John Paul II excluded the hypothesis of the immaculateness of Saint Joseph (see General Audience, June 12, 1996). Considering its low magisterial weight, the text of the Holy Pontiff does not, however, prevent theologians from continuing to reflect on the question. (Ibid., 538 n. 130)

 

The relevant quote from John Paul II’s General Audience from June 12, 1996 reads as follows:

 

The dogmatic definition does not say that this singular privilege is unique, but lets that be intuited. The affirmation of this uniqueness, however, is explicitly stated in the Encyclical Fulgens corona of 1953, where Pope Pius XII speaks of "the very singular privilege which was never granted to another person" (AAS 45 [1953], 580), thus excluding the possibility, maintained by some but without foundation, of attributing this privilege also to St Joseph.