Stephen (Against All Comers) Walford - Just a Piano Man?

I just finished listening to Mark Shea on Connecting the Dots with his guests Stephen Walford and Peter Vere. They engage in a "wide-ranging discussion of Francis, Amoris Laetitia, and the fake “crisis” that has been ginned up about him. " I enjoyed the discussion but that's not why I decided to write this piece. As often happens for me, I become more interested in writing about the reaction to something, than the thing itself. The thing that brought out the blog in me was one of the comments.

"Just FYI, Stephen Walford is a piano teacher, not a theologian.'

It's not the first time I've seen a comment of that nature concerning Mr. Walford. But more on that later.

I "met" Stephen Walford  over 4 years ago. Tim Haines and Wilson Orihuela had him on Vericast to interview him about his book "Heralds of the Second Coming". I was one of the call-in commenters. I very much doubt that he remembers our conversation. A few months ago I read his Open Letter to the Four Dubia Cardinals and thought "hey, I know that guy" remembering his interview with Vericast. So, by "met" and "know" I mean, well, internet and not a personal relationship, unless I just be name dropping.  I like his style and much of what he has to say, though. His articles are intelligent, intelligible and well researched. I have added the parenthetical "against all comers" to his name in a nod to a quote from a sermon by Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman.

"Our duty is, - not indeed to mix up Christ's Vicar with this or that party of men, because he in his high station is above all parties, - but to look at his formal deeds, and to follow him whither he goeth, and never to desert him, however we may be tried, but to defend him at all hazards, and against all comers, as a son would a father, and a wife a husband, knowing that his cause is the cause of God."

Walford has certainly taken the words of Cardinal Newman to heart as he has entered into the fray of discussion, debate and controversy with his defense of Pope Francis. He has definitely taken on all comers with the article I previously mentioned, as well as a more recent article The Amoris Laetitia Dissenters.

I have not read every article out there that disagrees with Stephen Walford's arguments. I'm sure some of them have been written in a true spirit of discourse. At least I hope so, anyway. What I am seeing, however, are comments that are meant to dismiss Walford, to diminish him rather than truly debate him. It makes me wonder what the value of their arguments actually are if they have to resort to throwing shade. He's got nothing to contribute, he's just a piano teacher, not a theologian. Just an amateur, a dilettante. My favorite is the headline "Wherein faithful canonist Ed Peters guts papolatrous dilettante Stephen Walford". Well, we have no need to read any further do we? Nor do we need to examine both arguments. We already know who has cred and who doesn't now don't we?

For a Piano Man, Walford is no slouch. Not too long ago he was granted a private audience with the Pope. (Maybe when you publically have the Pope's back he might want to shake your hand. "Thanks for being like Aaron and Hur for me") He has published 2 books and is working on a third. He has written for various publications. Which elicited another combox gem about how he was just a journalist. So says the combox authorities of what is worthy. 

What is that? Elitism? Just plain bougie, pretentious idolatry of the intellect, academia or the titles of men? Who says that a regular Catholic can't know and defend the faith? Who says they can't defend the Pope? Who says they can't make a solid and well formed argument, enter a debate or speak to error or controversy? Who says that a regular Catholic can't grasp theological concepts and nuances? Quite frankly, if that is so than most of the bloggers on the internet might just as well pack up and go home. How many saints, as well, who are now called theologian, not because of credential but because of their love of Christ and his Church and their openness to and trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit of that Church, would then be disqualified and dismissed?

Our Lord, himself, entrusted his Church to twelve ordinary men, not theologians. He did that, in the words of St. Paul, that "the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength" and "God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God". This indeed has been the way of the Church from the beginning.

I began blogging nearly 5 years ago. I was quite aware that I had no cred and no rep. Quite frankly, I am just a grandma. It was by reading the first encyclical of Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei, that I became inspired and encouraged to give my faith a voice. I hadn't even read the whole thing but it was this line that was the impetus for me to "go public", as it were. "Those who have opened their hearts to God's love, heard his voice and received his light, cannot keep this gift to themselves. Since faith is hearing and seeing, it is also handed on as word and light." So I took the small talent I had for expressing myself in the written word and stepped outside of my own little life. I began writing a blog, then added a second with a separate theme. I have written about theology, I have written about catechesis and apologetics though I am no formal theologian, catechist or apologists. I have written opinions about situations in the Church. I have researched and studied in order to share the teachings of the Church and I have seen the need to defend the Pope in the current climate. One day I stepped out of my comfort zone and called in to a show on the Vericast Network. The hand holding the phone literally shook the whole time from nervousness and I felt like I stuttered through the whole thing. Speaking in front of people is not my strong point and how am I qualified anyway? I soon became a regular contributor to the conversations on the shows, was asked to write blogs for Vericast and eventually was given my own show on their network. I was given the nickname of Miss Magisterium not because I was an expert on the magisterium but because of my stanch loyalty to, defense of and unwavering confidence in the authority of the Pope and the magisterium.

I guess the Piano Man and I have something in common. We both have taken to heart the words of Cardinal Newman to defend the Pope against all comers. We do it because we know that in defending his cause we defend the cause of Jesus Christ. I know that I trust Jesus and his promises to protect his Church and his Vicar. I believe in the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us that when the rains fall and the floods come, when the wind blows and beats against the Church, the rock on which the Church is built is the one thing that will not fall.

As far as qualifications go? We are Catholics baptized and confirmed in the faith. We are members of the Body of Christ. We are essential links in the chain of witnesses that makes it possible for others to see the face of Jesus in every age.

Pope Francis tells us in Lumen Fidei: The light of Christ shines, as in a mirror, upon the face of Christians; as it spreads, it comes down to us, so that we too can share in that vision and reflect that light to others, in the same way that, in the Easter liturgy, the light of the paschal candle lights countless other candles. Faith is passed on we might say, by contact, from one person to another, just as one candle is lighted from another. Christians, in their poverty, plant a seed so rich that it becomes a great tree, capable of filling the world with its fruit. The transmission of the faith not only brings light to men and women in every place; it travels through time, passing from one generation to another. Because faith is born of an encounter which takes place in history and lights up our journey through time, it must be passed on in every age. It is through an unbroken chain of witnesses that we come to see the face of Jesus...As salvation history progresses, it becomes evident that God wants to make everyone share as brothers and sisters in that one blessing, which attains its fullness in Jesus so that all may be one. The boundless love of our Father also comes to us, in Jesus, through our brothers and sisters. Faith teaches us to see that every man an woman represents a blessing for me, that the light of God's face shines on me through the faces of my brother and sisters...Finally, faith is one because it is shared by the whole Church, which is one body and one Spirit. In the communion of the subject which is the Church, we receive a common gaze. By professing the same faith, we stand firm on the same rock, we are transformed by the same Spirit of love, we radiate one light and we have a single insight into reality.

I am just a grandma and Stephen Walford is just a piano man. Abraham was just a nomad. Moses was just a guy with a stutter. Gideon's family was the lowest in the family of Manasseh and Gideon was the most insignificant in his father's house. David was just a shepherd. The apostles were just 12 ordinary men. St. Peter was just a fisherman. And our Lord himself? Many saw him as just a carpenter's son.

God will furnish us with all that is good that we might do his will and will carry out what is pleasing to him through Jesus Christ. It is God, as well, who works in each one of us for his good purpose and his grace is sufficient.

It's ok Piano Man. You can come sit by me. If you don't mind sitting by a nobody. We will be joined by all the apologist and Pope defenders out there that are just ordinary Catholics. All the people who have entered into public discourse whose background of study was just literature, or music or art  or journalism and not theology. Just moms, just dads, just brothers and sisters in Christ. Knowing that we are blessings to each other. The others, they can throw shade if they want to. Funny thing, but many of those who are so strongly against Pope Francis, who call those who defend him popalators? Who try to diminish and dismiss by throwing shade? Not long ago when they thought there was something in it for them, when they thought they had a Pope who would champion their idea of what the church should be, when they thought they had a Pope that was worthy they sang a different tune. They told us to love the Pope no ifs, ands or buts and quoted the words of Pope Pius X on loving the Pope. Funny thing that.

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, "si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit," [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey - that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. -Pope Pius X

For what it's worth.

By the way, everybody who sits with me has to put up with that free association thing I have with music. So we're going to enjoy some Billy Joel. It's that quirky thing I got going on. Nobody says that Catholics can't be a little bit quirky.

Oh Lord, Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good

Oh Lord please don't let me be misunderstood

The Animals 1965

From the very first day that he stepped out on the balcony of St Peter's, there have been those who have been horrified at Pope Francis. As a matter of fact, a blog headline on that first day of his pontificate read "The Horror". Even though the only actions the Pope had taken, as the Pope, at that time was that he wanted to dress and live simply, he waved and he asked for prayer. Even so, from that day to this, for nearly three years many have done whatever they can to prove that Pope Francis is not the man for the job. Every breath he takes, every move he makes, every single day and every word he says, they've been watching him. Watching for every misstep, watching for every misspoken word or mistranslation, watching for every analogy that might not hold up. Scrutinizing every  homily for the most minuscule perception of inconsistency. Then using those perceived inconsistencies to prove that Pope Francis is not worthy to be pope. Not only is he not worthy through an impression of ineptitude but rather they contend that he is an intentional heretic and a danger to the Church. They are then completely justified in turning others against him.

I have begun to get the reputation of a pope defender of none renown. I don't have enough people reading my blogs to claim any renown. Even so there are a couple of people who have Googled me and have seen that I have defended the Pope on more than one occasion. Those who wish to challenge my position often resort to a question like "Oh, so you just (blindly) think everything the Pope does is just swell?" Not necessarily. But I do give him the benefit of the doubt when something controversial is reported and I investigate. More times than not I find that while it may be said that the Pope is possibly unorthodox in style he is not heterodox in what he has said or done. I try to discover what the Pope may have been intending to teach me. I also know, if he makes a mistake, that "all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose"(Rom 8:28). So when the Pope makes a mistake, even if he is out and out wrong, I am not afraid the Church will come crashing to the ground. I believe that the Holy Father loves God and has been called according to his purpose, that Jesus sanctifies his Bride the Church and that the Holy Spirit is active in guiding it. I do not expect perfection from the Pope, I know that he is human. The Church does not teach that everything that the Pope says and does will be perfect, that it will not be subject to human flaws. The Pope's intentions are good. I believe, however, that he is often deliberately misunderstood. Some may say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That may be so. But right back at ya. It could also be said that to justify turning others against the Vicar of Christ, through intentions that we might consider good, a grave matter as well.

The words of the Holy Father are often challenging. They require us to dig a little deeper and think a little harder. Knowledge and understanding are more easily retained when we have to seek it for ourselves rather than having it spoon feed to us. I think that we don't always want to put that much effort into it. We prefer to be spoon fed a pablum of Vatican clarifications of the Pope's words and intent. I wonder sometimes, is the Pope really that confusing? Because I am not confused by him. I wonder if it is truly a matter of ambiguity and lack of clarity or if many are confused by him plain and simply because they are being told that they are supposed to be? I do know that the Pope is often misunderstood. I also know with certainty that there are times that this is intentionally and deliberately so.

Recently such misunderstanding has surrounded the homily that Pope Francis gave on the Feast of the Holy Family. There are some that have determined that the Pope said that Jesus sinned or that he required forgiveness and mercy due to sin. I have read that homily and can say that even on the face of it, Pope Francis said no such thing. A couple of bloggers that I know have written some very good articles explaining things, both men far more astute and erudite than I in the areas of theology and apologetics. The first being Scott Eric Alt's article "Does the Pope Really Think Jesus Sinned" and a second piece by Dave Armstrong "Pope Francis Espoused a Sinning Jesus? Think Again". 

My perspective comes from that of your common every day pew sitter. Speaking as an average Catholic I think you can give most of us a little credit as to having a certain amount of intelligence and at least an elementary knowledge of Church teaching. We also can handle a bad analogy from the Pope or something that might be misspoken without getting all shocked, shaken or jeopardizing our faith. Most of us do have the ability to interpret something that might be unclear through something that has been previously made clear. The Church teaches that Jesus was fully human in everything except sin. That has been made clear. The Pope has said it, as well, more than once as referenced in the two articles I have mentioned. The Pope does not then have to clarify that in every homily. He might be able to assume that would be the default understanding. Unless, of course, you are looking to find fault with something that he said.

Our Holy Father, in his homily, spoke of the family as being on pilgrimage together specifically in worshipping and praying together. He spoke as well of the importance of mercy in the family and that family is "a privileged place" of giving and receiving forgiveness and "experiencing the joy of forgiveness."  He then used the gospel of that day, the finding of Jesus in the temple, and related it to the human experience within this context. Although I would recommend reading the entire homily in order to clearly understand the context of Pope Francis' words, the following is the portion that seems to have been the source of misunderstandings.

At the end of that pilgrimage, Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to his parents (cf. Lk 2:51).  This image also contains a beautiful teaching about our families.  A pilgrimage does not end when we arrive at our destination, but when we return home and resume our everyday lives, putting into practice the spiritual fruits of our experience.  We know what Jesus did on that occasion.  Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, causing great distress to Mary and Joseph who were unable to find him.  For this little “escapade”, Jesus probably had to beg forgiveness of his parents.  The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.  Mary’s question, moreover, contains a certain reproach, revealing the concern and anguish which she and Joseph felt.  Returning home, Jesus surely remained close to them, as a sign of his complete affection and obedience.  Moments like these become part of the pilgrimage of each family; the Lord transforms the moments into opportunities to grow, to ask for and to receive forgiveness, to show love and obedience.
In the Year of Mercy, every Christian family can become a privileged place on this pilgrimage for experiencing the joy of forgiveness.  Forgiveness is the essence of the love which can understand mistakes and mend them.  How miserable we would be if God did not forgive us! Within the family we learn how to forgive, because we are certain that we are understood and supported, whatever the mistakes we make.

The word "sin" is not actually used within the homily, not once. The Holy Father does use the word "mistake". Within context, however, it seems that he is speaking about our experiences in families and not speaking of Jesus. Most of the objections seemed to arise from the use of the word "escapade" and the idea that Jesus may have asked for the forgiveness of his parents.

You may find the use of the word "escapade" to be a little cheeky. Then again, the word is enclosed in quotation marks indicating the Pope was probably being a little tongue in cheek and not literal. Lord help us, however, if our faith can be shaken on a cheeky reference from the Pope. Then again, have any of us been in a situation like that, where we couldn't find one of our children? Not through sin or fault but because of a miscommunication or misunderstanding? Then, after they are found safe and sound the story is told at family events as an "escapade"? I can relate a story from my own family. My sister and her son became separated at the mall. Often we tell our children to stay where they are when they become separated and wait for us to find them. My nephew, thinking the one place his mother would have to return to would be the car, went out to the parking lot, got in the car and waited patiently for his mother to find him. He was completely unaware of the furor going on inside of the mall as my sister searched frantically for him with the help of mall security. Did my nephew sin? Of course not. He did what he thought would be the right thing. Eventually he was found safe and sound. This "escapade" is now part of the lore related at family events.

In a similar way, Jesus thought that he was in a place where his parents could find him. He answered a call to be in his father's house. When Mary and Joseph found him they expressed that anxiety, without sin. Any parent who has lost a child for more than a minute understands the profound depth of that kind of distress, as well as the depth of relief when they are found.  In answering his parents some have said that Jesus was challenging them with a higher calling to be in his father's house. I think, however, that it was possible that there was merely some surprise there. "I had no idea. I honestly believed that if you couldn't find me you would know that I would be in my father's house and would be safe there." Honoring your father and mother is a commandment. The Lord holds that commandment in high enough regard that the keeping of it will bring you long life and the answers to your prayers. So could Jesus have asked forgiveness because of his parents distress? To honor his father and mother? Jesus often did what was right because it was right. He did many things to demonstrate humility, obedience and because they were required by the commandments. So I find it completely credible that Jesus may have said "I'm sorry you were so worried." and his parents may have responded "We are sorry that we did not understand,"

Have you ever said you were sorry not because you were at fault due to sin, but because of a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Have you said your were sorry because it was the right thing to do? Have you said you were sorry because, even though you were not at fault, not to do so would have been a matter or pride? Have you ever said you were sorry because the other person might need to hear it? I have. Jesus who was perfect, and his parents who were of far greater virtue than me may have as well. Sometimes asking for forgiveness is an act of humility. And sometimes when we ask for forgiveness we are actually extending mercy rather than requiring it.

"Let us not lose confidence in the family!  It is beautiful when we can always open our hearts to one another, and hide nothing.  Where there is love, there is also understanding and forgiveness.  To all of you, dear families, I entrust this most important mission - the domestic pilgrimage of daily family life - which the world and the Church need, now more than ever."

These are the final words of the Holy Father's homily. I believe we should take them to heart and extend them to the Pope as well. We should, through charity, first seek understanding regarding what the Pope says and does. Sometimes he may very well be wrong. In this case, I do not believe that he was, nor do I believe that his message was as confusing that some would have lead us to believe. His words did not put into question the teaching that Jesus was without sin. Nor did they cause me to doubt his divinity. The default position in reading this passage of scripture is that Jesus was without sin and that Marty did not sin as well. The default position with the Pope should be to seek orthodoxy first. Unless of course one chooses to be obstinate in misunderstanding him.

He's just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh, Lord please don't let him be misunderstood.

For what it's worth.