SANCTIFYING OFFICE

Doctrinal Importance

As a scholar of no small stature, Cardinal Müller’s approach to holiness is deeply informed by his theological positions. Much of his apostolic work in the sanctifying office has been in the context of his theological and administrative roles, some of which are addressed below in the “governing office.”

Regarding his acting principle for service to souls, he has said: “Doctrine and pastoral care are the same thing. Jesus Christ as pastor and Jesus Christ as teacher with his word are not two different people.”

Thus, perhaps even more than for other bishops, it is important to consider Müller’s priestly role alongside his teachings directly pertinent to practices of sanctity. His lack of training in scholastic theology has led to difficulties in some quarters in reconciling his positions with those of the Church as taught through the centuries.

His episcopal motto, Dominus Iesus (Jesus Is Lord), is the oldest declaration of faith in the New Testament and is a “confession of the divinity of Christ,” Müller explained in 2012. This confession, he said, “constitutes Christian identity.”

Devotion to the Eucharist

Cardinal Müller has encouraged devotion to the Holy Eucharist in a number of ways. While bishop of Regensburg, in 2004 he revived the six-hundred-year-old Kötzting “Whitsun Ride” (Kötztinger Pfingstritt) by reestablishing the event as a Eucharistic procession. To this day, the event attracts up to forty thousand people every year. In 2005, Müller participated in the Synod of Bishops on “The Eucharist, Source and Culmination of the Life and Mission of the Church,” during which he was able to draw upon his 2002 book, Die Messe: Quelle christlichen Lebens. ¹Gerhard Müller, Die Messe: Quelle christlichen Lebens [The Mass: The source of Christian life] (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2002). In that book, when speaking about Holy Communion and the Body and Blood of Christ, he states:

In reality, “Body and Blood of Christ” do not mean the material components of the man Jesus during His lifetime or in His transfigured corporeality. Rather, body and blood here mean the presence of Christ in the sign of the medium of bread and wine, which [presence] is made communicable in the here and now of sense-bound human perception. In other words, the conversion of substance means that bread and wine go from being natural vehicles of communication to being a new way of supernatural communication between God and man, with the goal of mediating salvation, which occurred in Jesus Christ in a real historical way. Christ, then, is really present in an objective sense. ²Müller, Die Messe, 139, 141. My translation. Original: “In Wirklichkeit bedeuten Leib und Blut Christi nicht die materiellen Bestandteile des Menschen Jesus während seiner Lebenszeit oder in der verklärten Leiblichkeit. Leib und Blut bedeuten hier vielmehr Gegenwart Christi im Zeichen des Mediums von Brot und Wein, die im Hier und Jetzt sinnengebundener menschlicher Wahrnehmung kommunizierbar wird. In der Wesensverwandlung geht es also darum, daß Brot und Wein aus natür- lichen Medien der Kommunikation zum neuen Weg einer übernatürlichen Kommunikation werden zwischen Gott und der Menschheit, mit dem Ziel der Vermittlung des Heils, das in Jesus Christus sich real-geschichtlich ereignet hat. Christus ist also real gegenwärtig in einem objektiven Sinn.

He indicates that he intends to explain the doctrine of Transubstantiation but wants to explain it without recourse to the Aristotelian philosophical distinction between substance and accidents. ³See Die Messe, 196. Elsewhere he more clearly affirms the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist alongside other traditional doctrines, including “the sacrificial character of the Mass [and] the necessity of an ordained priest, without whom there is no Eucharist.” ⁴Gerhard Cardinal Müller, The Power of Truth: The Challenges to Catholic Doctrine and Morals Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019), Kindle ed., 653.

Regarding his personal celebration of the liturgy, he prefers for himself to celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Nevertheless, Müller has also helped promote other noble forms. In 2016, for instance, he joined principal celebrants Cardinals William Levada and Donald Wuerl in the consecration of Steven Lopes as the first bishop of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, a Catholic institution that retains elements of Anglican patrimony in its life and liturgy.

Views on the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Blessed Virgin Mary, for Müller, is a “missionary of love,” who teaches us about the gratuitous love of God and leads us on the path of sanctity to a happiness that is purely a gift. We should turn to Mary in our need, Cardinal Müller recommends. In response to the coronavirus “social distancing” and quarantine that took place all over the world in April 2020, he gave the following spiritual advice in a Facebook post:

In this period of undoubted suffering many of us are forced to stay home. This limitation, however, can be transformed . . . into a moment of particular grace if we find time to renew our intimacy with the Lord, by listening to His word, with personal prayer and with the meditation of the saving mysteries contained in the Via Crucis and in the recitation of the Rosary.

He went on to say that those in isolation “can take on a commitment to intercede for those in need.” Müller then described that, after his daily celebration of Holy Mass, he prays to God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “asking for the grace of consolation for those afflicted by pain, for strength of spirit for all who help them and for blessings for those who, in various ways, guarantee a constant service for the common good.”

The perpetual virginity of Mary, a Catholic dogma, became a point of discussion when Müller was appointed prefect of the CDF. Some accused him of having diverged from the Catholic Faith regarding the manner in which Mary remained a virgin even during Christ’s birth. Müller argues that the doctrine does not refer to “deviating [from] physiological particularities during the natural birth process (such as the non-opening of the birth canal, the non-injuring of the hymen, and the absence of labor pains),” for the doctrine is not centered on “physiological and empirically verifiable somatic details.” Rather, for Mary, “the passive conditions of birth are integrated into this personal relationship [with her Son] and intrinsically determined by it.” ⁵Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Katholische Dogmatik, 10th ed. (Freiburg: Herder Verlag GmbH, 2016), 492. Original: “Es geht nicht um abweichende physiologische Besonderheiten in dem natürlichen Vorgang der Geburt (wie etwa die Nichteröffnung der Geburtswege, die Nichtverletzung des Jungfernhäutchen und der nicht eingetretenen Geburtsschmerzen). . . . Der Inhalt der Glaubensaussage bezieht sich also nicht auf physiologisch und empirisch verifizierbare somatische Details.” This position appears to run contrary to a widespread theological consensus, namely, that Mary’s virginity during the birth of Christ includes a spiritual dimension as well as a miraculous physical integrity that was unharmed. ⁶See the discussion in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 28, art. 2. Even if he departs from perennial theological consensus, however, Müller is not denying Mary’s perpetual virginity, but only discussing a non-defined concern regarding the precise manner in which Christ’s birth took place. ⁷It should be noted that Müller quotes Karl Rahner in support of his position: “Virginitas in Partu,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 4, trans. Kevin Smyth (Baltimore, Md.: Helicon Press, 1966), 162. Rahner holds that the dogma does not provide certain and universally binding details regarding the manner of Christ’s virginal birth.

Traditionis Custodes

 Cardinal Gerhard Müller has been critical of Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which placed severe restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. He described the Pope’s response as “harsh,” adding: “Without the slightest empathy, one ignores the religious feelings of the (often young) participants in the Masses according to the Missal John XXIII (1962). Instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook.”

He also criticized the lack of theological argumentation in the document, and emphasized that unity in the Church does not require “sterile uniformity in the external liturgical form, as if the Church were like one of the international hotel chains with their homogenous design.”

He also compared the Pope’s strong reaction to the old liturgy with his “relatively modest response” to the German Synodal Way, and said the restrictive document’s “clear intent is to condemn the Extraordinary Form to extinction in the long run.” He further emphasized that papal authority does not consist in mere obedience but being “convinced with consent of the mind.”

Müller does not consider himself a “traditionalist,” believing that the “content of the sacraments, the res sacramenti,” is “more important to me than the ritual form.” But he has become increasingly sympathetic to the traditional position. In May 2024 he celebrated a Solemn High Mass in Chartres Cathedral at the end of the traditional annual pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres, and in June 2024, he ordained priests for the Traditional Institute of the Good Shepherd.

Dominus Iesus versus Interreligious Dialogue

Though acknowledging a valuable role for interreligious dialogue, Müller has clarified that one must distinguish between dialogue per se and common prayer among religious adherents. Such distinctions can easily become blurred — for instance, in the Abrahamic Family Houses that are being established worldwide by the Higher Committee of Human Fraternity, the first of which is being built in Abu Dhabi with Pope Francis’ encouragement. ⁸The three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although these houses indicate separate worship spaces, nevertheless the system itself assumes a sort of equality among the religions. In contrast, Müller insists: “We [Christians] cannot pray like or with Muslims.” This is because “the faithful of Islam are not adopted children of God by the grace of Christ, but only his subjects.” Müller explained this in his 2019 Manifesto of Faith, saying, “The distinction of the three persons in the divine unity (CCC 254) marks a fundamental difference in the belief in God and the image of man from that of other religions. Religions disagree precisely over this belief in Jesus the Christ.”

GOVERNING OFFICE

Bishop of Regensburg

As bishop of Regensburg from 2003 to 2012, Gerhard Müller engaged in a number of activities aimed at improving the life of the local Church. Apostolic initiatives include Müller’s collaboration with the Emmanuel Community to carry out a city mission in 2008, which fanned out to other city parishes the year after. This initiative ended up involving more than a thousand volunteers who helped make the Catholic Faith a point of reference in dialogue. In order to help residents and tourists alike, Müller also introduced and supported the Inner City Counseling (Innenstadtseelsorge) project in the center of Regensburg.

Müller was also willing to correct what he saw as Protestant-like teaching and decision-making on the diocesan, deanery, and parish levels, promoted chiefly by three groups: the Central Committee of German Catholics (Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken [ZdK]), the Action Circle Regensburg (Aktionskreis Regensburg [AkR]), and We Are Church (Wir sind Kirche). The groups reacted with multiple attempts to ruin his reputation. Here is how that came about.

Under Cardinal Müller’s leadership from 2010 to 2012, the numbers of religious, religious priests and permanent deacons marginally increased, while the number of diocesan priests decreased from 812 to 792.

Tackling Dissent in Regensburg

From 2004 to 2005, Bishop Müller got to know the Diocese of Regensburg, under his care, by making a pastoral visitation of its eight regions. Finding widespread Protestantization under the guise of “the Spirit of Vatican II” and “democracy,” with participants in the three groups named above in favor of laypeople effectively running parishes as well as women’s ordination, Müller reorganized lay cooperation to correct for their aberrations. He corrected some participants, including both laity and priests, firing one theologian, withdrawing from another the permission to teach, returning the leadership roles to the clergy, and even exacting financial penalties, as is allowed in canon law. In response, the layman Hans Maier, chairman of the ZdK, appealed against Müller’s decisions arguing they were contrary to canon law. The Congregation for Clergy, however, decided in 2006 that Müller was fully within his authority as bishop to make those changes. After a further appeal, the Apostolic Signatura sided with Müller and definitively closed the case in 2007. These events influenced Müller, who would later say:

After many years’ pastoral experience of many kinds, I think perhaps it is time to deepen the concept of the “pastoral method.” I for one tend to have little confidence in an insistence that the solution to the secularization of a diocese or a parish lies in the application of a new pastoral theory or that “now the liturgy should be reconfigured in this new way to be credible and participative.” Behind these declarations, it is not hard to find a line of reasoning based on simply human postulates that, proposing laboratory pastoral recipes, is pursuing the ingenuous aspiration of solving all problems. Especially today, when our societies are under the influence of such an aggressive secularism, the mission has to give priority to divine grace. ⁹Gerhard Cardinal Müller with Carlos Granados, The Cardinal Müller Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, trans. Richard Goodyear (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017), 87, 88.

Addressing Sexual Abuse

Connected to Müller’s relations with activist lay groups in his diocese are accusations that he failed to address adequately the abuse of minors perpetrated by clergy there. One of the chief issues regards Fr. Peter Kramer. In 1999, four years before Müller became bishop of Regensburg, Kramer had been arrested, tried, and found guilty of abuse of boys and was sentenced to a three-year probation by a civil judge. From 2001 to 2003, Kramer worked as a “supply priest” with the permission of his therapist. He completed his probation in 2003, whereupon the therapist did not recommend that his probation period be extended. That same year, Müller began his apostolic work as bishop, and he received a report that, from a therapeutic point of view, Kramer could be appointed pastor of a parish. Meanwhile, Müller and his staff discussed with the judge whether Kramer could be returned to full-time parish work, receiving indications that he could. Müller therefore appointed Kramer to a parish in Riekofen, without revealing Kramer’s past. The priest began abusing boys almost immediately. The abuse continued for three years in secret until Müller learned of it and removed Kramer from ministry. Instead of apologizing, Müller wrote a letter explaining why he thought his decisions were reasonable; this was not well received. When laity later complained about Müller’s handling and negligence, and news outlets began reporting on this, the bishop said that he suffered from a Diffamierungskampagne — “a defamation campaign.”

According to Müller, he deserves no blame regarding abuse matters, for there is a documented chronology that he initiated investigations into sexual abuse of minors as soon as he became aware of the issue. ¹⁰The reliability of this chronology is disputed.

In 2011, the criminologist Christian Pfeiffer was hired in conjunction with the diocese to investigate clerical sexual abuse of minors. In 2013, after Müller resigned his work for Regensburg and took up residence in Rome as prefect for the CDF, Pfeiffer’s study was canceled. Precisely why is a matter of dispute. According to Pfeiffer, Bishop Gerhard Müller was largely responsible for this cancellation, as Müller, along with Cardinal Marx, wanted to change the contract and replace it with a new one that favored censorship.709 Fr. Hans Langendörfer, secretary of the German Bishops’ Conference, disagreed, arguing that the contract was canceled not for purposes of censorship but because Pfeiffer wanted to keep on permanent record tapes and interviews and make them available to a wide variety of researchers without adequately protecting the data, whereas the bishops — not only Müller, but all of them — wanted the data more protected and not for public consumption. Müller also worked to dismantle Pfeiffer’s arguments, pointing out that the investigator blamed clerical celibacy for the abuse and argued for a freer exercise of sexuality.

In 2015, the AkR — a lay group noted above that had been disciplined by Müller for its Protestantization — lobbed a formal complaint against the former bishop of Regensburg, alleging that he failed to exercise responsibility for sexual abuses in the diocese. The same year, an independent study of the diocese’s actions was begun by Günther Perottoni, head of the Regensburg branch of the Weißen Ring, and lawyer Ulrich Weber, who had volunteered for this victim-protection organization since 2006. In 2017, Weber wrote in his final report that Müller was responsible for the “strategic, organizational, and communicative weaknesses” in the process of investigations initiated in 2012 while he was still bishop. Some of this, Weber notes, included abuse of more than five hundred boys in the choir led by Msgr. Georg Ratzinger, brother of Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). Although Msgr. Ratzinger has not been accused of abuse himself, and has not been accused of knowing about it, nevertheless at the very least he appears to have been negligent in protecting the boys. Müller has said that Weber’s report is inaccurate, and he called upon state officials to apologize for damaging his good name.

In 2017, abuse survivor Marie Collins resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. Among her reasonswere criticisms of the CDF, at the time headed by Cardinal Müller, and an apparent refusal of the CDF to reply to letters from victims of abuse. Cardinal Müller responded by saying it was a “misunderstanding” to think his office “could deal with all the dioceses and religious orders in the world.” He added that the congregation asks bishops to respond and to pass on information saying that the CDF would do all that is possible to bring about justice.

Closing Controversial Pregnancy Centers

In Regensburg, Bishop Müller placed more power into the hands of the clergy than the laity, and in 2005, he reformed ecclesial structures with the aim of bringing governance more in line with the Code of Canon Law. Also as bishop in 2011, he closed Donum Vitae pregnancy centers on Benedict XVI’s instruction, as they were involved in abortion counseling. That same year, Müller barred Hans Maier, former head of the largest German lay Catholic organization, the ZdK, from using a diocesan center to promote his memoirs because Maier had supported the Donum Vitae association.

Administrative Skills and Finance

Cardinal Müller was not noted for his administrative skills at the CDF, and his approach to finances is mixed.

Germany’s Church tax has been the subject of much discussion, often blamed for weakening the Church’s witness by encouraging compromise with the state and deterring what Benedict XVI called Entweltlichung (unworldliness).

Müller, like Benedict XVI, is believed to have opposed a German bishops’ 2012 decree that effectively barred German Catholics from participating in the life of the Church if they had not paid the tax. However, he does not wish to see the levy necessarily ended. Although clearly not happy with the state of the German Church and its frequent compromises with secular values (he said in 2019 that the Church’s assets are not there to “fatten officials” and to “rent a platform for people’s vanities”), he believes less money will not resolve the Church’s problems and notes that most of the money goes to Catholic hospitals and other needed social work. As CDF prefect, the cardinal participated in the two synods on the family (2014 and 2015), and was a member of the German language group that was crucial in passing a proposition that would later permit “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion in some cases. Müller’s role in the group’s voting in favor of the proposition is unclear: according to Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the group “unanimously” voted in support of the proposal on the grounds that it was Thomistic, and therefore implied that the CDF prefect had lent his weight to it. Two years later, however, Cardinal Müller said he never gave the proposal his consent.

Financial Allegations

In the summer of 2024, Cardinal Müller faced several financial allegations stemming from his tenure as the then-CDF prefect.

Drawing on anonymous sources close to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretariat for the Economy, and the Vatican’s Office of the Auditor General, the Catholic publication The Pillar alleged that Müller’s departure from office came after financial problems at the CDF, which led to an investigation and the cardinal being ordered by the Pope to repay hundreds of thousands of euros to his own department.

The Pillar reported that sources familiar with the investigation had said tens of thousands of euros in departmental funds were kept in cash in office drawers and used as unreceipted discretionary funds by officials; that approximately 200,000 euros meant for the CDF’s departmental bank account was instead deposited in Müller’s personal account; and that the cardinal gave a centuries-old conference table, used to convene the doctrinal office’s most senior meetings, to a personal friend.

These discoveries emerged in 2015, two years before Müller was forced to resign, after an investigation was carried out and the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy found tens of thousands of euros in cash being removed from the office in plastic bags. Hundreds of thousands of euros in cash were left to accumulate without proper records of their origin or use, The Pillar claimed.

Cardinal Müller responded by issuing multiple statements strongly denying any wrongdoing and saying that funds that ended up in his bank account was due to a clerical error involving account numbers. Following the Vatican investigation, Pope Francis reportedly ordered Cardinal Müller to repay the funds that had been transferred to his personal account.

Müller’s statements did not address the attempt to remove bags of cash from the CDF offices immediately prior to an inspection, but he said that an official whom he called “a figure of great rectitude and proven experience” had inventoried “in a somewhat confused way, we would say haphazardly compared to the standards later adopted,” incoming money related to the dicastery’s work.

Regarding accusations of financial impropriety, Müller dismissed the claims as “cheap tabloid literature” and “artfully mounted” stories. No money was lost during his tenure, he asserted, and the CDF’s finances were properly managed.

Concerning the table, he stated that he had independently raised funds for a new table and claimed to have obtained permission from the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA) for the removal of the old table, which he described as “dilapidated.” He did not directly address claims that he gave the antique table as a gift to a personal friend, an antique furniture restorer and dealer, but stressed that his actions were transparent, conducted with honesty, and that he had clarified every aspect of the situation .

He added that the events reported by The Pillar had been clarified long ago and that the CDF had not lost any money under his leadership. Müller also emphasized that the funds were kept in a safe and, although the handling might have been haphazard, there was nothing illegal about it. In comments to a Spanish publication, he described the resurfacing of the story as defamatory and lacking any informational purpose.

The cardinal did not respond to detailed questions sent by The Pillar, but characterized the report as “typical intrigue” and an “extraordinarily hurtful campaign,” suggesting that it was intended to damage his reputation. The cardinal repeated his strong objections to The Pillar’s report in comments to Raymond Arroyo that were aired on EWTN’s The World Over program on Aug. 8, 2024.

TEACHING OFFICE

Scholarly Output

With more than five hundred publications to his name, Gerhard Müller’s scholarly and popular output manifests his serious commitment to the teaching office of a bishop. He states:

For me there were never contradictions between being a priest and study. I was always convinced that the Catholic faith corresponds to the highest intellectual exigencies. We must never fear intellectual confrontation; we don’t have a blind faith, but faith cannot be reduced in a rationalistic way. I hope that everyone will have an experience similar to mine: that of identifying themselves in a simple way and without problems with the Catholic faith and of practicing it.

Cardinal Müller has received numerous international accolades for his scholarship. In 2001, he became a member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and a year later was made a correspondent member of the theological section of the Real Academia de Doctores de España in Madrid. He has been granted the title Dottore Honoris Causa by three Polish Catholic universities (Lublin, 2004; Warsaw, 2007; and Wrocław, 2015) and an honorary doctorate from the University of Lima in Peru.

He has published in many fields, including ecumenism, modern theology, the theology of revelation, theological hermeneutics, and ecclesiology. Among his most widely known works is his Katholische Dogmatik: Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie published by Herder.

Because of the great number of topics that Müller has covered, often in detail, only some of the most salient or controversial are covered here.

Views on Liberation Theology

Given Cardinal Müller’s present reputation for orthodoxy, even conservatism, it may be a surprise to some that he has defended a “correct” liberation theology.

His engagement with that controversial sphere began in 1988 when he was invited to participate in a seminar run by Gustavo Gutiérrez, one of the founders of liberation theology. Already the CDF had twice written about this theme with the important documents Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation” (1984) and Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation (1986), as well as corrections of Leonardo Boff’s book on “militant ecclesiology” (1985). Although accepting those interventions and recognizing that Catholic theology should not mix with “the doctrine of Marxist self- redemption,” Müller freely admits, “A Catholic child of Mainz has social passion in his blood, and I am proud of it.” For fifteen years, he spent up to three months out of twelve in South America, especially Peru and Argentina, in simple conditions, teaching and learning about liberation theology. Müller became such friends with Gutiérrez that they coauthored a book meant to clarify matters: On the Side of the Poor: The Theology of Liberation (2015). In the work, Müller argues, “People should not be suspicious of liberation theology in all of its forms simply because of its use of some Marxist ideas. Instead, they should investigate Marxism as an appropriation and secularization of the basic convictions of the Christian theology of history and eschatology.” ¹¹Gerhard Cardinal Müller and Gustavo Gutiérrez, On the Side of the Poor: The Theology of Liberation, trans. Robert A. Krieg (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015), Kindle ed., location 1591 of 2822. According to him, “liberation theology fundamentally differentiates itself from Marxism on the basis of its foundation in a theological anthropology,” such that an adequate theology of liberation has significant ties to French nouvelle théologie and Karl Rahner’s thought: “When liberation theology is set in relation to the theologies of de Lubac and Rahner, questions about it and objections to it resolve themselves.” ¹²Müller and Gutiérrez, On the Side of the Poor, locations 1591 and 1647 of 2822. Müller repeated the same position in his work The Cardinal Müller Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, with Carlos Granados (BAC, 2016/Ignatius Press, 2017). Having an admitted great friendship with Gutiérrez, Müller arranged a Mass in which they concelebrated with Pope Francis.

Priestly Celibacy

The issue of priestly celibacy has also received attention from Cardinal Müller. In recent times, he has appeared to oppose the much-discussed proposal to ordain viri probati (proven married men) to the priesthood in the Latin Church, which is seen as a solution to vocation shortages. In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, he made headlines by saying, “Not even the pope can abolish priestly celibacy.” He recalled the 692 synod of Trullo in which the emperor attempted to force the Church to abolish celibacy; Müller noted that celibacy is “not a law that can be changed at will” because it has “deep roots in the sacrament of orders.” He explains, “The priest is the representative of Christ the Bridegroom; he lives a living spirituality that cannot be changed,” and furthermore, “the tradition of the Church is not a game that can be shaped at will.” However, it was noted in the Amazon synod, in which this issue was openly discussed, that in 1991 Müller had given a talk in which he showed himself in favor of retaining celibacy while also ordaining married men. ¹³Gerhard Müller, “Priestertum und Zölibat. Reflexionen nach einem Besuch in Südamerika,” in Josef Sayer and Werner Tzscheetzsch, eds., “Pastoral der Befreiung”: Eindrücke einer praktisch-theologischen Forschungsreise nach Peru (Skriptenreihe der Akademie Altenberg 2, 1991), 98-101. Recalling a meeting in which he participated in 1988, he said:

Celibate priests are necessary for the priesthood. It must, however, be possible to ordain religiously proven and theologically educated family fathers, not only in remote areas but also in huge city parishes, so that basic pastoral and liturgical practices can continue to be celebrated . . . . A new concept of this kind would not contradict the Church’s tradition, as loyalty to tradition does not mean that the Church is only committed to past history but, on the contrary, far more to future history.

Significantly, in his statements regarding the tradition of priestly celibacy since 1991 or 1992, Müller has not entirely retracted his earlier reasoning. Instead, he has emphasized the value of celibacy as the “norm,” while arguing that the introduction of married priests “would unquestionably mean the end of celibacy,” which would be unacceptable. ¹⁴Müller and Granados, The Cardinal Müller Report, location 1306.

Women’s Ordination

Regarding female ordination, Müller has consistently held that it is contrary to Catholic faith and practice. His work Priestertum und Diakonat (2000) — Priesthood and Diaconate (2002) — is something of a classic. ¹⁵Full titles: Priestertum und Diakonat: Der Empfänger des Weihesakramentes in schöpfungstheologischer und christologischer Perspektive; Sammlung Hori- zonte NF 33 (Freiburg, 2000). English revision and trans., Priesthood and Diaconate: The Recipient of the Sacrament of Holy Orders from the Perspective of Creation Theology and Christology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002). In it, Müller argued that the diaconate is the first essential grade of the sacrament of Holy Orders, such that women cannot be ordained. Although deacons do not act in persona Christi capitis, “in the person of Christ the head,” but as Christ was a servant, nevertheless, such a configuration to Christ is reserved to men alone by tradition and as a sign of the Bridegroom who is united to His Bride, the Church. Müller’s work greatly influenced the International Theological Commission, whose subcommittee, which included Christoph Schönborn, had examined the question of women deacons from 1992 to 1997. Cardinal Ratzinger reconfigured the commission to include Gerhard Müller and Luis Tagle; after examining the issue, the commission produced the document From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles (2002). Phyllis Zagano, an American author who strongly supports women deacons, notes that the ITC document borrows heavily from Müller’s unattributed work. ¹⁶Phyllis Zagano, “Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities,” in Deaconesses: The Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology, ed. Petros Vassiliadis et al. (Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018), 493.

Significantly, Müller’s views regarding the diaconate influenced and cohered so strongly with those of Ratzinger that Benedict XVI changed canon law to reflect that theology more closely. ¹⁷See Benedict XVI, “Motu Proprio Omnium in Mentem” (26 October 2009), promulgating that canon 1009 should read, “Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity.” Protestant professor Thomas Schirrmacher holds that when Pope Francis decided to explore the question of women’s ordination, Müller refused to head yet another commission on the issue: “He rejected it; he saw it as an entrance door for the topic of the ordination of women.” He repeated his opposition to a female diaconate after news that the pope had decided in April 2020 to set up a second commission to discuss the subject (the third such commission in recent years). “Women cannot become priests,” he said, “because this is excluded by the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

But aside from a female diaconate, Müller has no problem with women having greater roles in the Church, nor women as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, nor girls as altar servers.

Approach to Defense of Doctrine

 On his appointment as CDF prefect, Müller said he saw the Church “not as a fortress but rather a sacrament, a sign, a symbol and an instrument for the salvation of all people.” He added that the congregation’s role is, above all, to support the mission of the Church, which today means defending the Faith “from the assault of secularism and materialism, which denies the transcendent dimension of human existence and therefore distorts the ethical, moral and intellectual orientation of society.”

Müller sees the Faith as offering the greatest alternative to the culture of death as Christians promote the culture of life and of hope. But he also believes that the Church should accept all that is good and true about contemporary society while upholding the family as a prophetic witness to society. In fact, he has never seen himself as a “conservative” and rails against such a label. Rather he sees himself and his theology as fully consistent with the Second Vatican Council while recognizing problems with liberal theology. In a 2017 interview with the National Catholic Register, he said: “All my life, after the Second Vatican Council, I’ve noticed that those who support so-called progressivism never have theological arguments. The only method they have is to discredit other persons, calling them ‘conservative’ — and this changes the real point, which is the reality of the faith, and not in your personal subjective, psychological disposition.”

“By ‘conservative,’ what do they mean?” he continued. “Theologically it’s not possible to be conservative or progressive. These are absurd categories: Neither conservatism nor progressivism has anything to do with the Catholic faith. They’re political, polemical, rhetorical forms. The only sense of these categories is discrediting other persons.”

Human Fraternity Document

In May 2020, Cardinal Müller endorsed Pope Francis’ controversial 2019 Document on Human Fraternity, which some Catholic scholars say contains heresy. Writing in the journal Communio, Müller argued that the document had led neither the pope nor the grand imam of al-Azhar, the joint signatory, “to give up their own creed” and that it “does not open the door to dogmatic and ethical relativism.”

Second Vatican Council

Respected for his theological expertise and seen as a true believer, Cardinal Müller is what a source called a “dyed-in-the-wool Vatican II prelate.” He has said the problems that followed the Council “were not caused by the Council” and that the “secularist mentality” that followed it “had nothing to do with the Council.” Secularism was promoted in the nineteenth century by “liberals who denied the supernatural law,” and so the “waves of secularism began to undermine the Church long before the Council.”

He is not a theological trailblazer or one who holds to a Hegelian approach to theology in the mold of fellow German cardinal Walter Kasper, but he does see himself as a theological innovator, as his views on Mary’s virginity and liberation theology indicate. Politically, however, he is a conservative. Müller has taken a hard line against the traditional Society of Saint Pius X, both as bishop of Regensburg and later as CDF prefect, when he was also president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei — the body charged with regularizing the SSPX. In 2012, he accused them of developing ideas that “formed into an ideology” which they then use to “judge all things.” He has rejected their emphasis on the liturgy, saying that more than one form can be celebrated. He also has rejected their views of Vatican II, saying their reasons for opposing the Council arise from “the use of terminology.” But the Church “never contradicted herself,” he said. Just before he left the CDF in 2017, Müller sent a letter to the SSPX with Pope Francis’ approval, halting talks with the Vatican.

Cardinal Müller has been a strong critic of the German Church’s synodal path (2020-2023), which ostensibly aimed to tackle key issues arising from the clerical sex abuse crisis, but which critics said was geared towards having the Church align with the times and essentially Protestantize or even secularize the Church. Müller compared the process to the 1933 Enabling Act, when the Weimar Republic gave sweeping powers to Adolf Hitler. He said the synodal path was similarly a “self-appointed assembly, which is not authorized by God, nor by the people it is supposed to represent.”

Coronavirus

 In May 2020, Cardinal Müller put his name to an appeal expressing concern about global measures being implemented to stem the coronavirus pandemic, and calling for “inalienable rights of citizens and their fundamental freedoms” to be respected. The appeal, whose signatories included Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, Robert Kennedy Jr., and a number of doctors, lawyers, and journalists, said that the coronavirus was a “pretext” to deprive the faithful of Mass and, among other aims, impose a world government. The appeal, issued on May 7, 2020, had been drafted by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former apostolic nuncio and staunch critic of Pope Francis. Some German bishops, including the head of the country’s bishops’ conference, distanced themselves from the appeal, while others thought bishops were departing from their field of expertise by signing such petitions. Cardinal Müller stood by his decision to endorse it, criticizing the state-driven suspension of public Masses, and the hierarchy’s cooperation, as “a very serious thing” and revealing that “secularist thinking has entered the Church.” He said those who have a different opinion are today considered “conspiracy theorists,” adding that some within the Church used the text “to make indignant capital against their supposed opponents.”

In December 2021, Müller further suggested that a “strong financial elite” was using COVID-19 policies worldwide to “enforce conformity” and “take over total control.” He also accused them of “totalitarian thinking.” He said that the response of some bishops and priests to close churches or deny the sacraments was a “grave sin” that goes against their “God-given authority.” Regarding the COVID vaccines, he said Christians should be allowed to follow their conscience and opt out of vaccine mandates, especially in cases where aborted fetal tissue may have been part of the cell line used to develop the vaccine.

Synod on Synodality

Cardinal Muller been a staunch critic of the Synod on Synodality, calling it a step towards “Protestantization” and representing a “hostile takeover” of the Catholic Church. He has criticized it for manipulation, for being pre-determined, and has questioned its canonical legitimacy. ¹⁸ Cardinal Müller has been concerned that the Synod on Synodality could lead to doctrinal changes that contradict traditional Catholic teachings. He has also called it an “occupation of the Catholic Church” and a “hostile takeover,” warning that the supporters of the Synod aim to transform the Church into a welfare organization, thereby undermining its spiritual mission. Despite his criticisms, Pope Francis made him one of the synod’s synod fathers and he took part in the first general assembly in 2023 and the second in October 2024. He described the first session as “very controlled” and “quite manipulated,” with most interventions coming from a few keynote speakers. He criticized the limited speaking opportunities for participants, noting that he was only given three minutes to address the assembly. Müller also likened the assembly to an Anglican synodal meeting, and suggested that it undermined the hierarchical structure of the Church by giving laypeople voting rights and equal speaking opportunities. The German cardinal also warned that some participants were using the Synod to prepare the Church to accept ideologies contrary to established doctrine, such as the ordination of women and changes in teachings on homosexuality. He accused these individuals of “abusing the Holy Spirit” to introduce new doctrines that conflict with Scripture and Tradition.

At the end of the second and final assembly in 2024, he firmly admonished unnamed but clearly influential members of the Synod on Synodality for invoking the Holy Spirit to try to undermine the Church’s teaching. He listed seven ways he believed they had done this.

Fiducia Supplicans

Cardinal Müller has been vocal in his criticism of the Vatican’s declaration Fiducia Supplicans, arguing that the document is self-contradictory and requires further clarification. He believes that the declaration does not align with traditional Catholic doctrine and could lead to confusion and doctrinal errors within the Church. He has said there was no need for it and has criticized its pastoral approach, saying it does not adequately address the need for a clear understanding of grace, sin and salvation. He has also been concerned the declaration could lead to division in the Church, and has called for a return to the clarity of traditional Church teaching as outlined in the Catechism and the word of God. A few months earlier, in the context of the German Synodal Way, he had called the same-sex blessings a “blasphemy.”

Other Pronouncements

In April 2024, Cardinal Müller rebuked local Belgian authorities who tried to shut down a conference he spoke at, comparing them to “absolutist rulers of the past” and wishing to withdraw the “fundamental right to freedom of assembly.”

Ahead of the 2020 US Presidential election, Cardinal Müller urged U.S. Catholic voters to “test the spirits” before voting, emphasizing that any politician who actively promotes abortion and euthanasia is “not eligible for election” from a Catholic perspective. He touched on Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians such as Joe Biden, saying that while there shouldn’t be public debates at the Communion rail, their parish priests and bishops should clearly communicate the Church’s stance on abortion. Overall, Müller said bishops and priests should form consciences of the faithful based on the natural law and Christ’s teachings, rather than pushing personal political preferences.

RELATIONSHIP WITH CARDINAL RATZINGER/ BENEDICT XVI AND FRANCIS

Papal Defender and Critic

Since Pope Francis’ election, Cardinal Müller has sought to defend Francis and his actions personally while being vociferously critical of numerous aspects of his pontificate that he believes have departed or appeared to depart from sound theology and ecclesiology.

In a 2017 interview, Cardinal Müller defended Francis’ controversial Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, saying it “must clearly be interpreted in the light of the whole doctrine of the Church.” Müller also emphasized the importance of upholding the structure of the Catholic Church, due to the fact that many bishops began to interpret the publication according to their own understanding.

Commentary about Amoris Laetitia from some Catholic leaders claimed the publication was a way for the Church to change Church doctrine to allow individuals who are divorced and “remarried” to receive Holy Communion. However, Cardinal Müller noted if the pope’s publication “had wanted to eliminate such a deeply rooted and significant discipline, it would have said so clearly and presented supporting reasons.”

However, he later became critical of the Pope’s official approach to the most controversial part of the document: access to the Sacraments for civilly divorced and remarried Catholics.

In a 2023 letter to Cardinal Dominik Duka, Cardinal Müller criticized Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, calling it “theologically ambiguous,” and the guidelines issued by the Argentine bishops regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and civilly remarried Catholics which became Pope Francis’ official position on the issue. ¹⁹Müller argued that Fernández’s response and the Argentine bishops’ text was theologically ambiguous. This ambiguity arose, he said, because the guidelines could be interpreted in ways that contradict established Catholic doctrine. Specifically, the guidelines suggest that some divorced and remarried individuals might receive Communion even if they do not commit to living in continence. He said that such an interpretation could lead to doctrinal confusion and contradict long-standing Church teachings, and called for clear and definitive answers to ensure that the faithful are not required to accept teachings that may be contrary to established doctrine.

In 2023, he said Pope Francis “has already uttered plenty of material heresies,” but that since these are not formal heresies, Pope Francis has not lost his office.

Manifesto of Faith

In February 2019, Cardinal Müller delivered a Manifesto of Faith to remind bishops, priests, religious, and laypeople of the Catholic Church about the truth of revelation.

Written in response to requests from “many bishops, priests, religious and laypeople,” the testimony of Catholic doctrine covered Christology, ecclesiology, sacraments, morality, and eschatology. It was aimed at pro- viding clarification in the context of a pontificate whose pronouncements many faithful had found at times confusing, disorienting, and inconsistent with Church teaching, and amid what Müller said was a “growing danger” that people are “missing the path to eternal life.”

Müller heavily references the Catechism of the Catholic Church throughout the manifesto, and, within discussion of the sacraments, notes that individuals conscious of a grave sin, including “divorced and civilly “remarried” persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church,” must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving Communion.

He warns against bishops and priests keeping silent about hard truths of the Faith, saying that to do so is “the greatest deception,” which the Catechism “vigorously” warned about as possibly presaging the rise of the anti-christ — echoing what Cardinal Willem Eijk had said a year earlier. Quoting St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, he exhorts bishops and priests to “preach the Word in season and out of season” for there will come a time when “sound doctrine” will not be endured, but people will have “itching ears.”

Responding to the Dubia

Müller has also argued against issuing a fraternal correction of the pope while encouraging a papal answer to the dubia. “What the Church needs in this serious situation is not more polarization and polemics, but more dialogue and reciprocal confidence,” he said in 2017. “The Successor of St. Peter deserves full respect for his person and divine mandate, and, on the other hand, his honest critics deserve a convincing answer.”

He said a possible solution could be for the pope to have a group of cardinals “begin a theological disputation with some prominent representatives of the dubia and the ‘corrections’ about the different and sometimes controversial interpretation of some statements in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.”

As with most of his comments about Francis’ pontificate and Francis himself, Müller seeks to provide a conciliatory rather than a critical voice, usually by simply reasserting what the Church has always taught. Genuinely concerned that the pontificate exists in a kind of theological and ecclesiological vacuum, lacking basic knowledge of crucial concepts, he has tried in his own way to offer basic correctives.

But his efforts at conciliation also confounded some, as in 2017, when, as CDF prefect, he played down what many viewed as problems with Amoris Laetitia, telling an Italian television program that the document posed “no danger to the faith” and so a fraternal correction was not necessary, and criticizing the four “dubia Cardinals” for making their appeal to the pope for clarification public.

The cardinal became significantly more critical of the pontificate after he left the CDF, saying he shared the opinion of the dubia and arguing that it would have been better if Francis had had an audience with the four cardinals before their publication rather than have the “spectacle of a trial of strength” that followed.

Reticence to Criticize Pope Francis

The cardinal has always remained respectful of Francis and instead attributed the problems to the courtiers around the pope, “careerists and opportunists,” who were always sowing discord and had besmirched the cardinal’s name. The CDF had become essentially superfluous during his tenure as prefect, as Francis relied on his own courtiers and ghost writers and hardly consulted the dicastery on drafting or checking papal documents. Müller, however, refused to be drawn into public criticism, also after his sudden dismissal as prefect. In his 2017 interview with the National Catholic Register he said:

The important thing is that we have to love the Church because she is the Bride of Christ. Loving her means that we sometimes have to suffer with her, because in her members she is not perfect, and so we remain loyal despite the disappointments. In the end, it is how we appear in the eyes of God that matters, rather than how we are regarded by men.

Although he was highly critical of the Amazon Synod both before and during the 2019 meeting, Cardinal Müller was quick to praise Querida Amazonia, Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the gathering, calling it a “document of reconciliation.” Some leading figures criticized it for not definitively closing the door to married priests and women deacons (the text appeared to rule them out, but Francis’ aides said these were still on the table), but Müller praised the document for its “personal and attractive tone,” and added it was “a pastoral letter of prophetic power.”

A rare occasion when he did make his grievances known was when the pope, without any explanation, ordered Müller to dismiss three of his priest officials at the CDF, all reputed to be highly proficient. Müller strongly resisted and went to see the pope in person to try to reverse the decision but did not succeed. After leaving the CDF, he called the dismissals “unacceptable.” The episode, his friends say, revealed Müller’s strong sense of loyalty to both collaborators and friends — and to the pope, whom he reluctantly obeyed.

In 2023, Müller also criticized the Pope’s removal of Bishop Joseph Strickland from his diocese of Tyler, Texas, calling it “an abuse of the Divine Right of the Pope.” He said the Pope had “no authority from Christ to intimidate and bully good bishops,” but again attributed it to those around the Pope. They were “false friends,” he said, who “denounce these good bishops to Francis as enemies of the Pope, while heretical and immoral bishops can do as they please or disturb Christ’s Church every day with some other nonsense.”

The cardinal has also been critical of Francis’ choice of his successor, Cardinal Victor Fernandez, confirming that the DDF had a file containing theological concerns about the new prefect.

Pope Francis appears to have noted Müller’s loyalty and reticence to criticize him directly, appointing him member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in 2021, and making him a synod participant at the first general assembly of the Synod on Synodality in 2023. He also elevated him from cardinal-deacon to cardinal-priest on July 1, 2024, although this is an option available to all cardinal-deacons after 10 years.

Relationship with Benedict XVI

Müller’s relationship with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had naturally been close, given their past history and their theological kinship. Müller also headed the diocese with close connections to Joseph Ratzinger, and Benedict appointed Müller CDF prefect. Müller also worked closely with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the International Theological Commission when Ratzinger was president.

In 2008, when Müller was bishop of Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI personally entrusted him with the publication of his Collected Writings of sixteen volumes. To ensure the undertaking was carried out properly, Bishop Müller founded in Regensburg the Pope Benedict XVI Institute, whose main task has been to collect and publish the works of Joseph Ratzinger in their entirety, including previously unedited writings.

Benedict appointed Müller CDF prefect in 2012, raising him to arch- bishop — an appointment that he said did not surprise him because he had been a member of the CDF for a number of years and had been a professor of dogmatics for many years before that.Francis elevated him to the College of Cardinals in 2014.

Müller often came to Benedict’s defense. He defended the former pope’s assessment of the clerical sexual abuse crisis issued just before a Vatican summit on the issue in 2019, and denied any rift between Benedict and Francis. He also defended Benedict against a report accusing the former pope of mishandling abuse cases when Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich.

• 1
  Gerhard Müller, Die Messe: Quelle christlichen Lebens [The Mass: The source of Christian life] (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2002).
• 2
  Müller, Die Messe, 139, 141. My translation. Original: “In Wirklichkeit bedeuten Leib und Blut Christi nicht die materiellen Bestandteile des Menschen Jesus während seiner Lebenszeit oder in der verklärten Leiblichkeit. Leib und Blut bedeuten hier vielmehr Gegenwart Christi im Zeichen des Mediums von Brot und Wein, die im Hier und Jetzt sinnengebundener menschlicher Wahrnehmung kommunizierbar wird. In der Wesensverwandlung geht es also darum, daß Brot und Wein aus natür- lichen Medien der Kommunikation zum neuen Weg einer übernatürlichen Kommunikation werden zwischen Gott und der Menschheit, mit dem Ziel der Vermittlung des Heils, das in Jesus Christus sich real-geschichtlich ereignet hat. Christus ist also real gegenwärtig in einem objektiven Sinn.
• 3
  See Die Messe, 196.
• 4
  Gerhard Cardinal Müller, The Power of Truth: The Challenges to Catholic Doctrine and Morals Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019), Kindle ed., 653.
• 5
  Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Katholische Dogmatik, 10th ed. (Freiburg: Herder Verlag GmbH, 2016), 492. Original: “Es geht nicht um abweichende physiologische Besonderheiten in dem natürlichen Vorgang der Geburt (wie etwa die Nichteröffnung der Geburtswege, die Nichtverletzung des Jungfernhäutchen und der nicht eingetretenen Geburtsschmerzen). . . . Der Inhalt der Glaubensaussage bezieht sich also nicht auf physiologisch und empirisch verifizierbare somatische Details.”
• 6
  See the discussion in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 28, art. 2.
• 7
  It should be noted that Müller quotes Karl Rahner in support of his position: “Virginitas in Partu,” in Theological Investigations, vol. 4, trans. Kevin Smyth (Baltimore, Md.: Helicon Press, 1966), 162. Rahner holds that the dogma does not provide certain and universally binding details regarding the manner of Christ’s virginal birth.
• 8
  The three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
• 9
  Gerhard Cardinal Müller with Carlos Granados, The Cardinal Müller Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, trans. Richard Goodyear (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017), 87, 88.
• 10
  The reliability of this chronology is disputed.
• 11
  Gerhard Cardinal Müller and Gustavo Gutiérrez, On the Side of the Poor: The Theology of Liberation, trans. Robert A. Krieg (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2015), Kindle ed., location 1591 of 2822.
• 12
  Müller and Gutiérrez, On the Side of the Poor, locations 1591 and 1647 of 2822.
• 13
  Gerhard Müller, “Priestertum und Zölibat. Reflexionen nach einem Besuch in Südamerika,” in Josef Sayer and Werner Tzscheetzsch, eds., “Pastoral der Befreiung”: Eindrücke einer praktisch-theologischen Forschungsreise nach Peru (Skriptenreihe der Akademie Altenberg 2, 1991), 98-101.
• 14
  Müller and Granados, The Cardinal Müller Report, location 1306.
• 15
  Full titles: Priestertum und Diakonat: Der Empfänger des Weihesakramentes in schöpfungstheologischer und christologischer Perspektive; Sammlung Hori- zonte NF 33 (Freiburg, 2000). English revision and trans., Priesthood and Diaconate: The Recipient of the Sacrament of Holy Orders from the Perspective of Creation Theology and Christology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002).
• 16
  Phyllis Zagano, “Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities,” in Deaconesses: The Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology, ed. Petros Vassiliadis et al. (Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018), 493.
• 17
  See Benedict XVI, “Motu Proprio Omnium in Mentem” (26 October 2009), promulgating that canon 1009 should read, “Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity.”
• 18
  Cardinal Müller has been concerned that the Synod on Synodality could lead to doctrinal changes that contradict traditional Catholic teachings. He has also called it an “occupation of the Catholic Church” and a “hostile takeover,” warning that the supporters of the Synod aim to transform the Church into a welfare organization, thereby undermining its spiritual mission. Despite his criticisms, Pope Francis made him one of the synod’s synod fathers and he took part in the first general assembly in 2023 and the second in October 2024. He described the first session as “very controlled” and “quite manipulated,” with most interventions coming from a few keynote speakers. He criticized the limited speaking opportunities for participants, noting that he was only given three minutes to address the assembly. Müller also likened the assembly to an Anglican synodal meeting, and suggested that it undermined the hierarchical structure of the Church by giving laypeople voting rights and equal speaking opportunities. The German cardinal also warned that some participants were using the Synod to prepare the Church to accept ideologies contrary to established doctrine, such as the ordination of women and changes in teachings on homosexuality. He accused these individuals of “abusing the Holy Spirit” to introduce new doctrines that conflict with Scripture and Tradition.
• 19
  Müller argued that Fernández’s response and the Argentine bishops’ text was theologically ambiguous. This ambiguity arose, he said, because the guidelines could be interpreted in ways that contradict established Catholic doctrine. Specifically, the guidelines suggest that some divorced and remarried individuals might receive Communion even if they do not commit to living in continence. He said that such an interpretation could lead to doctrinal confusion and contradict long-standing Church teachings, and called for clear and definitive answers to ensure that the faithful are not required to accept teachings that may be contrary to established doctrine.