Q: I have always wondered why St Joseph felt he had to send Mary away when he found that she was carrying a child. Couldn’t he simply have married her and accepted the child?
A: The episode to which you refer is in St Matthew’s Gospel: “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” (Mt 1:18-19).
We recall Mary had been away for three months attending to her relative Elizabeth as she awaited the birth of John the Baptist (cf Lk 1:39-56). Some time after her return it was clear Mary too was with child, but she felt obliged not to tell Joseph it was by the Holy Spirit.
It is important to know betrothal for the Jews at that time was very different from today. Even though the formal wedding ceremony had not yet taken place, betrothal conferred the status of husband and wife, so the couple could have marital relations and might conceive a child, regarded as legitimate.
In view of that, there would have been no surprise if Mary was expecting a child. Others would simply have thought the child was Joseph and Mary’s. But Joseph knew the child was not his. What was he to do?
We can be certain Joseph did not suspect Mary had conceived by another man. He knew her too well for that; he knew how virtuous she was. Even today there are some people who are so virtuous, so holy, we know they would not commit certain sins.
Joseph would thus have been completely bewildered by the fact that Mary was carrying a child not his own, nor that of any other man.
Could he not have accepted the child as his own and proceeded with the the wedding? He could have, but obviously decided against it, perhaps because it would have put him publicly in a false position.
In these circumstances, St Matthew tells us Joseph decided to send Mary away quietly rather than expose her to public shame.
That is, rather than take the matter to the local court to have the “divorce” recognised publicly, he would simply give her the required “bill of divorce” or “writ of dismissal” before two witnesses (cf Mt 19:7).
Theologians such as John Saward, René Laurentin and Ignace de la Potterie, basing themselves on St Thomas Aquinas and St Bernard of Clairvaux, give an explanation of Joseph’s actions that makes great sense.
They say he was so overwhelmed by Mary’s holiness and the great mystery of the child of God she was carrying that he felt unworthy to be her spouse and decided to release her of any obligation to marry him.
His sense of unworthiness would have been similar to that of St Peter before Jesus’ divine power revealed in the miraculous catch: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Lk 5:8).
St Bernard points out St Elizabeth expressed the same attitude when Mary visited her carrying Jesus in her womb: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43).
Everything depends on the Greek word customarily translated as “to send away” or “to divorce”. Apolysai also means “to withdraw from” or “to set free”.
Thus the passage could be translated: “… and her husband Joseph, being a holy man and not wanting to reveal her mystery, resolved to withdraw from her quietly”.
One can imagine the overwhelming joy of Joseph when the angel appeared to him in a dream and said: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20).
Joseph did take Mary as his wife and he assumed the father’s role of giving the child the name of Jesus (cf Mt 1:25; Lk 1:62-63).
It is one more example of the exceptional holiness of St Joseph.