Today’s readings: Ecclesiasticus 3, 3-7.14-17; Colossians 3, 12-21; Luke 2, 41-52.

The feast of the Holy Family was instituted by Pope Leo XIII end of 19th century when the family was facing a major transition with the advent of industrialisation. In our times the family is facing another major transition with a society that is so fragmented and with the crisis of institutions at large. It hardly makes sense any longer to propose the image of the family of Nazareth today, given that what that image mainly conveys is a patriarchal family set-up.

It was precisely this awareness that provoked in the last two years two Synods of Bishops with the Catholic Church struggling to come to grips with a reality that has changed radically but whose stability we all believe is still vital for a healthy and soulful society. Our postmodern world is becoming, at its heart, a hungry, homeless world that suffers from a deep sense of isolation and fragmentation. The family should be a place of belonging, of healing from isolation and loneliness. When it is, it’s heaven. When it is not, it’s hell.

There are different ways of experiencing what family signifies in the life of each and every one. The first experience of family as a true home where we comfortably belong can determine the shape of who we are and who we become. This is what constitutes ‘home’ in our life. On the contrary, the lack of that, makes us homeless and determines the way we perceive life and reality.

It is not easy to belong in a fragmented world. This is a major challenge families are faced with. The family which was once the natural institution, protected by law and culture and tradition is no longer that safe. The question that surfaces every so often we discuss about the family as the basic cell of society is how we can have stability in society at large and in persons in particular if and as long as the family is unstable.

It is high time that we stop comparing today’s family with a past tradition of stability in the family. What we need instead to acknowledge in the first place is that the changes we always dreaded are here to stay. It is of no use to preach endlessly how things should be without taking stock of how the dynamic within the family has radically changed. Worse than this is the scenario where we continue to preach expired doctrines.

By and large institutions have all had their share of turmoil and the family as an institution could not be spared. What actually is in crisis is the way we relate to others and to ourselves. There is too much on the outside that destabilises relationships in the family nucleus and that disconnects us from ourselves. The weaker we as persons become, the deeper the crisis will be.

We can speak freely about love, we expect the commitment and the fidelity of others, but very often we forget that there is always a price to be paid. What saves a marriage and guarantees its stability is ultimately the gift of self. That is the only criterion given in the Scriptures. As long as love is conditioned, as long as we pretend always from others, there is no growth and we are doomed to fail.

All this explains the crisis we are experiencing today. We often blame it on the lack of preparation before marriage. That can only be true to some extent. What many a time is really lacking is not in the immediate preparation course couples are asked to follow if they opt for a Church marriage.

What may be tragically lacking is the capacity itself to live gently with others, to be humane in the way we sustain each other, to be unconditionally respectful of the other’s individuality.

So what is truly lacking is the soil where a relationship can grow and make roots. It is the good soil of virtuous persons that can provide society with the antidote to the crisis of marriage and the family.

Virtue comes from ‘virtus’, the strong person, referring to the strength of character which makes a person capable of containing the other. ‘Capable’ is the translation of the Latin ‘capax’, which to the modern mind means ‘capable of doing something’ whereas originally it meant capacity to contain.