On September 28, National Catholic Register published an extensive interview of Cardinal Gerhard Muller conducted by Edward Pentin.
The portion of the interview that seems to be garnering the most attention concerns his comments surrounding the current climate in Rome:
I heard it from some houses here, that people working in the Curia are living in great fear: If they say one small or harmless critical word, some spies will pass the comments directly to the Holy Father, and the falsely accused people don’t have any chance to defend themselves. These people, who are speaking bad words and lies against other persons, are disturbing and disrupting the good faith, the good name of others whom they are calling their brothers.
Sure, shame on the “people who are speaking bad words,” but what about the Heretic-in-Chief who welcomes their reports and then acts on them without giving the accused any chance to defend themselves?
This is the man Muller (and other spineless fools who care more for appearances and benefices than substance) calls “Holy Father.”
Muller, as the sum total of his comments suggest, doesn’t have either the fortitude or the faith to lay blame where it belongs.
According to Muller, not even the controversy surrounding Amoris Laetitia is poor Francis’ fault:
I think the Pope should not be blamed for this confusion [re: AL], but he is authorized by Jesus Christ to overcome it.
As I mentioned in a recent post, we live in a world wherein the focus is almost entirely on rights, real or perceived; with very little attention given to duties.
As Cardinal Muller’s comments indicate, this is true even among churchmen.
Whether or not one thinks Francis is to be blamed for the present crisis surrounding Amoris Laetitia (and of course he is), the fact remains that he is duty bound to overcome it; never mind being authorized to do so.
As for who exactly is to blame if not Bergoglio, when asked about the Filial Correction, Muller replied:
What the Church needs in this serious situation is not more polarization and polemics, but more dialogue and reciprocal confidence.
Yes, let’s ignore the Argentinian arsonist-in-white so we can throw stones at those who dare to sound the fire alarm.
With regard to the object of the Correction, Amoris Laetitia, he said:
Nowhere in Amoris Laetitia is it demanded by the faithful to believe anything that is against the dogma because the indissolubility of marriage is very clear. The only question is whether, in some cases, true matrimony exists in today’s context, in a culture where the definition of matrimony is very different from what the Church is teaching.
First, no one with any credibility whatsoever is arguing that Amoris Laetitia is binding upon the faithful.
The objective sense of the text is the issue; the first issue, that is.
On this note, Muller insists:
[Amoris Laetitia] does not contain any “new dogma,” but is, rather, an exposition of dogma always held and taught by the Church. In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments.
So, according to Muller, Amoris Laetitia is an exposition of dogma always held and taught by the Church, and an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church.
A moderately well-formed adolescent knows better.
In any case, the second issue concerns Francis’ willingness, or unwillingness, to conform the teaching in Amoris Laetitia to the true faith; thereby letting it be known whether or not he is a formal heretic.
At this point, one would have to be in a deep state of denial (and many apparently are) to imagine that Francis is anything other than entirely unwilling to recant his heresies in favor of authentic Catholic doctrine. And you know what that makes him, don’t you?
(HINT: It starts with “anti” and ends with “pope.”)
Now, let’s return to the most revealing thing Muller said in this interview:
The only question is whether, in some cases, true matrimony exists in today’s context, in a culture where the definition of matrimony is very different from what the Church is teaching.
If nothing else, we can be grateful for the cardinal’s candor. He’s not pulling any punches; he’s telling us that he believes that a legitimate question exists as to whether or not “true matrimony” today is “very different” from what the Church has always taught.
This is precisely the error of modernism; the synthesis of all heresies.
…dogma may [not] be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the Apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. (cf Oath Against Modernism)
Look, we’ve long since known that Gerhard Muller is just another man-of-the-Council; a sellout to modernism and an enemy of Holy Mother Church. This latest interview only further confirms as much.
Tell me again why his dismissal from the CDF is so unfortunate?