Claim. Joseph and Mary should have attended Jesus as God’s prince from birth — filial piety in the reverse direction, parent to Messianic child — and their failure to do so is read as an early loyalty-failure that shaped the providence.
Elaboration. SMM inverts the usual parent-child direction of filial piety: “Had Joseph and Mary known that Jesus was the true son sent by God, God’s prince, and the Messiah of all the nations, they would have attended him as God’s prince from the day of his birth. They would have worshipped him daily” (CSG 14.4 §3, 16-27, 1965.12.26). “Joseph and Mary should have attended Jesus with loyalty and filial piety, completely devoting themselves to him from the moment he was born.” The implicit normal-law objection — “where is there a law which requires parents to be loyal and filial to their son?” — is answered: “However, that was exactly what heavenly law required.” When the Messiah comes as the heavenly child, heavenly law overrides the natural parent-child hierarchy, and the failure of the human parents to invert their stance was a providential cost.
See also. csg-jesus-as-the-archetype-of-loyalty-and-filial-piety