By your own admission there is no historical proof, no Scriptural evidence, no writings from the early church fathers, no nothing to support the contention that Joseph was previously married and had children from that marriage, and yet here we see Catholics arguing for something that has no basis in a DESPERATE bid to somehow explain away the clear reading of Scripture that Jesus had siblings and still maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary.
All this demonstrates is that Catholics want to believe this to be true so badly that they will stoop to any kind of rationale and convoluted reasoning to bolster this unsupportable doctrine, even to the point of making things up.
Why do Catholics want the perpetual virginity to be true so bad? How does it diminish either Christ and His work on the earth, or Mary in the role she played in fulfilling prophecy that after His birth she honorably fulfilled her role as wife to Joseph? Why is Mary diminished in character by having had sex with Joseph and, in obedience to God's command to be fruitful and multiply, bearing him children of their own?
Well maybe there has been a little progress. At least some are admitting that Jesus really DID have a brother and that, lo and behold, the word used in the NT actually meant BROTHER after all! I still haven't seen an answer to my question about why, if Joseph had other kids, he failed to bring them along with him when he had to go to Nazareth to register his family for the census? If they were left with family instead then why couldn't Mary also have been left seeing as how she was so close to her delivery?
Has anyone ever stated how old James the less was? If he really was a stepbrother to Jesus he had to be older than him. So when was he born or how old was he when he died around 64 AD or so?
I have pondered that question myself for many years. I think I may know the answer, not saying I am 100% right, but I think it is because their magesterium has declared it as a dogma, a rule of faith, and mandated that all Catholics everywhere MUST accept it or face excommunication. Like we have seen in several different answers here on this thread, some believe all that they are told to and refuse to question the reasons. I believe it is because they know deep in their hearts that if the "Church" got even one thing wrong, then it puts all things on the table that they might be wrong about too. This is what happens when extra-Biblical doctrines are allowed equal footing with the Bible.
I am not really even sure why the "powers that be" came to such an admittedly unprovable statement concerning the perpetual virginity as well as the sinlessness of Mary. The Orthodox at least hold that it is not a rule of faith and they allow liberty to their members on believing it or not.
There is no contradiction there, even if I did say what you say I said. It is possible, -- in fact, it is usually the case, -- that the Tradition knowa one thing as fact, and some other thing -- as a possibility without being able to give it the strength of a known fact. The same is true in any family, and probalby in your family as well. Some things we know from the family records, other we know from related to us memory of others, yet some we are not sure because ther are more than one account and they differ, yet others we only know in general sense and with many details lost. In the Traditon of the Chruch there are things of all these kinds.
Now, I did not say "there is no historical proof, no Scriptural evidence, no writings from the early church fathers, no nothing to support the contention that Joseph was previously married and had children from that marriage". I said that "there is no single tradition on [whether] the firstborn son of Joseph was none other but St. James the Just, brother of the Lord, a Holy Apostle and the First Bishop of Jerusalem". There is no single tradition because two ideas dominate. In the East it is generally thought that James and other "brothers of the Lord" were in fact step brothers ans children of St. Joseph from his previous marriage. In the West, the prevalent Tradition says that they were cousins. There are good arguments for both. Note that regardless of the exact family relation of James the Just to Jesus no tradition thinks he is His "brother" in the narrow sense, yet both traditions lovingly call St. James the "Brother of the Lord".
It is usually a good idea to understand what was posted to you and if you wish to praphrase it, do so accurately.
Why do Catholics want the perpetual virginity to be true so bad?
You have put this question to me a few times already. Do you expect a different answer each time? We like to telel the truth, that is why. We leave lies and speculations to the Protestant charlatans.