Another story that I am posting belatedly - more interesting perhaps for the strong reaction to one of the statements made by Cardinal Mueller in the interview. After all, he says nothing new about the questionable and vexing issues forced onto the agenda of the October 2015 synodal assembly on the family. But he is right, of course, to reaffirm the Church position, the doctrine of the faith, as often as he can - that is his duty as CDF Prefect...
Interview with Cardinal Mueller
by Samuel Lieven and Nicolas Senèze
Translated from
March 29, 2015
For Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, visiting France for the release of the first volume in French of the COMPLETE WRITINGS OF JOSEPH RATZINGER, to which he wrote the Preface, the doctrine of the Church is the expression of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ, even as he distinguishes dogma from the concrete organization of the sacraments.
Made a cardinal by Pope Francis, Mons. Mueller firmly defends the position of the Church on remarried divorcees.
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says it is impossible for the Church to eventually recognize a second marriage after divorce
[unless of course, the divorcee's sacramental spouse has died, or the Church marriage has been annulled.].
How do you conceive of your role in this Pontificate? Is it different than it was with Benedict XVI, who was a theologian and had preceded you at the CDF?
The arrival at the Chair of Peter of a theologian like Benedict XVI is without a doubt exceptional. But John XXIII was not a theologian by profession or training. Pope Francis too is more pastoral, and
the CDF has the mission to provide a theological structure for the Pontificate.
I appreciate the experience of this Pope who comes from Latin America. I have often visited Peru and other Latin-America countries. I know a bit about the situation there, especially that of a poverty which is absolutely different from the poverty we see in Europe.
I think it is Pope Francis's great mission to unify the world, to overcome this enormous difference between the European and North American countries, and the peoples of Africa, Latin America and Asia. He points out that there is only one humanity, one earth, and a universal responsibility. His coming encyclical on the ecology will underscore this global responsibility with respect to climate and to universal access to common resources.
[Not that Benedict XVI did not already do all that in Caritas in veritate!]
Is that not an argument close to liberation theology? Now that Mons. Romero will be beatified, does LT now have the right to be cited by the very highest officials in the Church?
It has never been condemned by the Church. But it simply must overcome the risk of a purely political or social focus. Catholicism does not separate the transcendent dimension and the world. With the Incarnation the two dimensions were intimately unified. We speak of integral salvation. We have a social doctrine that has developed over the past 150 years, and in
Deus caritas est, Benedict XVI also pointed out that the diaconate was a fundamental activity of the early Church, in its liberating function as in its political dimension. Politicians cannot be content to be simply managers. We need a morality of solidarity, of unity among men, instead of selfishness, materialism, populism....
The Catholic Church has been perceived till now as firmly buttressed in its doctrine. Is this changing now?
One may have the impression that previous Pontificates were fixated on sexual morality and that Pope Francis wishes [
to return to the universal message of the Gospel. But his message is also very clear about the sexuality of the human being ordered to the will of God who created humans as man and woman.
[One would have expected Mueller to point out the counter-analogy that previous Popes certainly preached the universal message of the Gospel - Francis is not 'returning' to doing this - and that the perception of the Church's (and her Popes') focus on sexuality is simply the perception of a world so obsessed with sex in its pursuit of happiness and fleeting pleasures that all it sees about the Catholic Church is her insistence that sex has a divinely ordained function within the sacrament of matrimony, and is otherwise sinful.]
The Church rejects every gnostic or dualist view that would make sexuality an isolated element of human nature. The Pope wishes to broaden reflection to underscore that the mission of the Church is to give hope to all men.
And that is precisely the theme of the family synods in 2014 and 2015 on "the mission of the family in the Church and in the world". [Which makes it even more egregiously glaring that the problem of remarried divorcees, practising homosexuals and unmarried cohabiting couples have hogged all the attention All three categories are 'extra-familial' - these are the irregular unions which do not meet the attributes of the Christian family in very fundamental ways, so why are they the focus of discussion in these 'family synods'?
Cardinal Burke was right: a separate synod should be called to discuss them - presumably on what the Church should and can do to lead them away from the chronic state of sin that they have chosen to inhabit, not what the Church can do to, as Pope Francis has said, 'fully integrate them into the life of the Church' while seemingly indulging them in their chosen lifestyle, as Cardinal Kasper has articulated.]
Would a synthesis be possible between views that are so different and diametrically opposed as we saw in the last synodal assembly?
As Prefect of the CDF, I have responsibility for unity in the faith. I cannot be partisan. But things are clear: We have the words of Jesus about marriage and their authentic interpretation throughout the Church's long history - the Councils of Florence and Trent, the synthesis of it in
Gaudium et Spes and all subsequent Magisterium.
Theologically, everything is very clear. We are confronting the secularization of marriage with the separation of religious marriage and the civil contract. Thus we have lost the constitutive elements of marriage as a sacrament and as a natural institution.
The message of the Church on marriage opposes this secularization. We must rediscover the natural foundations of marriage and underscore for all the baptized the sacramentality of marriage as a means of receiving the grace that irrigates the spouses and their whole family.
Can the bishops' conferences have more latitude on these subjects?
One must distinguish two levels: dogma and the concrete organization. Jesus instituted the Apostles with Peter as the principle of the unity of the faith and of the Church's sacramental communion. The Church is an institution of divine right. In addition, we have canonical structures that have evolved according to circumstances.
The bishops' conferences are an expression of the collegiality of the bishops within a country, a culture or a language, but it is a practical organization.
The Catholic Church exists as a universal Church in the communion of all its bishops united with and under the aegis of the Pope. She also exists in the local Churches. But the local Church is not the Church of France of the Church of Germany. It is the Church of Paris, the Church of Toulouse, etc. each of which corresponds to a diocese.
The idea of a 'national Church' would be totally heretical. Autonomy within the faith is impossible! Jesus Christ is the Savior of everyone - he unites all men.
Are disciplinary changes possible without touching doctrine?
Discipline and pastoral ministry should be in harmony with doctrine, which is not a platonic theory to be corrected by practice, but the expression of the truth revealed in Jesus Christ.
On the question of remarried divorcees, is it possible to imagine that, after some penitential course, the Church could recognize a second union which does not have a sacramental character?
It is not possible to have two wives! If the first union is valid
[presumably a Church marriage, in this case], it is not possible to contract a second marriage. Yes, a penitential course is possible, but not a second 'marriage'
[if the Church marriage is not annulled, or the first spouse is still alive].
The only possibility is to return to the first legitimate marriage, or to live the second 'marriage' as brother and sister. That has been the position of the Church, according to what Jesus himself said. I would add that it is always possible to seek a declaration of annulment of the Church marriage from an ecclesiastical tribunal.
Do you think then that the solution would come through a 'softening' of canonical rules?
Benedict XVI already posed that question. Unfortunately, for some Catholics, marriage in Church is nothing more than a folk ritual, whereas for others, it really has a sacramental sense. It is up to a Church tribunal to prove the genuineness, or not, of the Church marriage. Canonical law can be applied to concrete situations.
[In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all solution even on the matter of annulments.]
Interestingly and understandably, Andrea Tornielli, JMB/PF's number-one unofficial propagandist, bridled at Cardinal Mueller's statement about 'theological structuring' of the Pontificate. Here was his reaction in VATICAN INSIDER:
Müller suggests new task for the CDF
The German cardinal has suggested a new area of responsibility for his dicastery: to provide the “theological structure of a pontificate”
by ANDREA TORNIELLI
VATICAN INSIDER
In one of the numerous interviews he has given over the past few weeks focusing on the next Synod, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke about a new task for his dicastery.
It is a task that has never been mentioned in the documents outlining the precise competencies of the former Holy Office.
In an interview with the French Catholic newspaper
La Croix, the German cardinal stated: “The arrival of a theologian like Benedict XVI in the Chair of St. Peter was no doubt an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis is also more pastoral and
our mission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to provide the theological structure of a pontificate.”
So according to Müller’s statement,
the former Holy Office must “theologically structure” Pope Francis’s pontificate. And this is probably the reason why the Prefect gives public statements on such a frequent basis, like never before.
This is a significant piece of news, bearing in mind what is stated in article 48 of
Pastor Bonus, the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia promulgated by John Paul II in 1988: “The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world.”
While the Pope “by the will of Christ Himself”, as Francis recalled at the end of the 2014 Synod, is the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful”
(Canon 749).
Until a few decades ago (the last to do so was Paul VI) it was the Pope himself who personally presided over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, precisely because of this task which, by virtue of the Petrine primacy, only he has the power to exercise. A primacy which belongs to the Bishop of Rome, which involves presiding “in charity” and
resolving theological questions where needed.
[Yes, but that is why a Pope needs the CDF. has Tornielli forgotten that JMB/PF himself has said so a number of times that while he gives the general picture, it is up to the CDF to make the precise brushstrokes that will make the picture theologically clear. On the other hand, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too, because he has told bishops that they should go ahead and do what they think is right, and not worry if the CDF objects! In other words, Mueller and the CDF provide him with a useful hedge in that their existence serve as a guarantee of his orthodoxy - and so, Mueller's blunt statements regarding the hot-button issues of the Bergoglian family synods are allowed and tolerated. As long as the Pope and his bishops can do as they please, 'pastorally'. For now, Mueller has confined himself to general reaffirmations of Church teaching on marriage, sexuality and the Eucharist against those who would dilute that teaching, without ever implying that the Pope himself may be among these.]
Cardinal Müller’s words - which introduced the new task of “provid[ing] the theological structure of a pontificate”, a task that had not been formalised until now - went practically unnoticed.
[Because, in general, the Anglophone media generally ignore or underplay non-English Vatican reporting and commentary outside of Italy.]
While on the one hand his words open up new doctrinal scenarios in relation to Church tradition, on the other
they seem to suggest that, according to Müller, the current pontificate – and St. John XXIII’s too – lacks sufficient theological “structure”. [MEOW! Or is that really a tiger's growl masquerading as sarcasm?]
I personally think that Mueller was thinking in terms of the task faced by the CDF to seek to provide a theological rationalization for JMB/PF's more audacious heterodoxies if, God forbid, they should be formalized to apply to the universal Church! At which point, I have been wondering, will Mueller cease to be useful as a hedge, and JMB/PF goes ahead to name his theological brain and alter ego, Mons. Victor Fernandez, as Prefect of the CDF? I truly believe the latter already has all his theological ducks in a row - in black and white on a pre-prepared document - to provide the rationalization that Mueller could never provide for JMB/PF if, in fact, he proceeds to legislate his famed 'communion for everyone' for the universal Church, with or without ratification by the October 2015 synodal assembly.
As for Tornielli's reaction to Mueller's statement, I think it is only because he needs to go on record with his objection. Even if like all the rest who have ignored the provocative Mueller statement, he knows that Mueller is entirely expendable once JMB/PF no longer needs him as a theological hedge. And precisely because Mueller is no threat at all to the Pope, who can replace him at any time, only a couple of conservative blogsites have picked up Tornielli's reaction, and the original story, for that matter. For the rest of Catholic media, Mueller-vs-Francis is simply a 'no contest'.