German source gives Mueller’s
account of how he was dismissed
Bergoglio asked him five questions, after which he said
‘Good, I want to tell you I am not renewing your mandate’ –
and left the room
By Maike Hickson
ONEPETERFIVE
July 10, 2017
After Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, revealed that he had personally spoken by phone with the now-deceased Cardinal Joachim Meisner about his recent dismissal, and that this conversation had taken place the night before Meisner’s sudden death on the morning of 5 July, several well-informed sources in Europe in communication with me all used the same expression, namely, they speculated that
perhaps Cardinal Meisner had “died of a broken heart.”
In light of the following disclosures about the content of the 30 June meeting between Pope Francis and Cardinal Müller, we might be even more inclined to believe that this was the case – at least as a moral possibility.
The following information comes from the report of a trustworthy German source, who spoke to OnePeterFive on condition of anonymity. He quotes an eyewitness who recently sat with Cardinal Müller at lunch in Mainz, Germany. During that meal, Cardinal Müller is alleged to have disclosed in the presence of this eyewitness certain information about his final meeting with the pope, during which he was informed that his mandate as Prefect of the CDF would not be renewed.
According to this report, Cardinal Müller was called to the Apostolic Palace on 30 June, and he thus went there with his working files, assuming that this meeting would be a usual working session. The pope told him, however, that he only had five questions for him:
o Are you in favor of, or against, a female diaconate? “I am against it,” responded Cardinal Müller.
o Are you in favor of, or against, the repeal of celibacy? “Of course I am against it,” the cardinal responded.
o Are you in favor of, or against female priests? “I am very decisively against it,” replied Cardinal Müller.
o Are you willing to defend Amoris Laetitia? “As far as it is possible for me,” the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith replied: “there still exist ambiguities.”
o Are you willing to retract your complaint concerning the dismissal of three of your own employees? Cardinal Müller responded: “Holy Father, these were good, unblemished men whom I now lack, and it was not correct to dismiss them over my head, shortly before Christmas, so that they had to clear their offices by 28 December. I am missing them now.”
Thereupon the pope answered: “Good. Cardinal Müller, I only wanted to let you know that I will not extend your mandate [i.e., beyond 2 July] as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith.” Without any farewell or explanation, the pope left the room.
Cardinal Müller at first thought that the pope left in order to fetch a token of gratitude, and thus he waited patiently. But, there was no such gift, nor even an expression of gratitude for his service. The Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, then had to explain to him that the meeting was over, and that it was time for him to leave.
At the time of this writing, we have not been able to obtain confirmation of these events from Cardinal Müller, nor from his secretary, to whom we reached out for comment. Similarly, we requested a comment from Greg Burke at the Vatican Press Office, but as of press time, we have received no response.
If this report is true – and, given the sources, we have little reason to doubt it – we can well imagine why Cardinal Meisner would have been distressed after hearing about this meeting in the hours before his death.
- Did these five questions with their yes or no answers, if indeed they were asked of Cardinal Müller, constitute a sort of reverse dubia?
- Were the Cardinal’s responses, insofar as they were in accordance with orthodox Catholic thought, the reason he was not asked to continue in his role as Prefect of the CDF?
Of the five questions, three (female diaconate, priestly celibacy, and the promotion of Amoris Laetitia) have been widely discussed as part of the pope’s “reform” agenda.
- But is the female priesthood really expected to be reviewed in relation to the female diaconate, even though Pope Francis has already personally affirmed the understanding that Pope John Paul II ruled definitively against the possibility?
- And what of the final alleged question — the one pertaining to the pope’s dismissal of three priests from the CDF last year without cause? If such a question were asked, was it merely a test of unquestioning obedience?
Recall that the pope’s reported answer, when asked by Cardinal Müller about the dismissal of these three priests, was simply to say, “I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.” [Given that Mueller had already been the recipient of such an arrant display of bad manners by the current ‘Vicar of Christ on earth’ (it gives me shivers just to think about the inappropriateness of it all), he would have known when the pope left the room on June 30 that he had just received another blast of it!]
In an interview with Passauer Neue Press, Müller revealed additional information that appears to support the above-described abruptness of his final meeting with the pope:
Pope Francis, Cardinal Müller said, “communicated his decision” not to renew his term “within one minute” on the last work day of his five-year-term, and did not give any reasons for it.
“This style [sic] I cannot accept,” said Müller. In dealing with employees, “the Church’s social teaching should be applied,” he added.
As our own report on Cardinal Müller’s departure documented, he has suffered a number of indignities during his tenure as CDF prefect under the present pontificate. Nevertheless, Müller has taken pains since the announcement of his departure to give the public appearance that his relationship with the pope was not strained. “There were no differences between me and Pope Francis,” Müller told a local German newspaper during the same visit to Mainz when he was alleged to have revealed to his dining companion the context of his final meeting with the pope.
It is not entirely clear if Müller is expressing a lack of conflict between himself and the pope as a sign of solidarity, or in order to emphasize the unexpectedness of the pope’s decision not to renew his term. Whatever the case, he has sought in public to downplay the significance of his departure.
There is little about Müller’s dismissal from one of the Catholic Church’s most prominent ecclesiastical offices that isn’t unusual. As respected Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti noted in his important July 7 essay for First Things, Müller’s departure from the position at age 69 — well before the mandatory retirement age — was “a gesture unprecedented in the Church’s recent history.” Over the past six decades, Tosatti noted, “prefects of the Church’s most important congregation (it has been called La Suprema) have retired due to age or health reasons, or have been called, in the case of Joseph Ratzinger, to become the pope.” None during that time have suffered the indignity of simply being unceremoniously let go.
One anecdote recounted by Tosatti from his own conversations with friends of the German cardinal gives particular credence to the emerging picture that Pope Francis has long treated the prefect emeritus with contempt:
It appears that Müller experienced life under Bergoglio as a sort of Calvary. This, despite Müller’s statements—he has been a good soldier to the end, and even beyond.
The first step of Müller’s Calvary was a disconcerting episode in the middle of 2013. The cardinal was celebrating Mass in the church attached to the congregation palace, for a group of German students and scholars. His secretary joined him at the altar: “The pope wants to speak to you.” “Did you tell him I am celebrating Mass?” asked Müller. “Yes,” said the secretary, “but he says he does not mind—he wants to talk to you all the same.” The cardinal went to the sacristy. The pope, in a very bad mood, gave him some orders and a dossier concerning one of his friends, a cardinal. (This is a very delicate matter. I have sought an explanation of this incident from the official channels. Until the explanation comes, if it ever comes, I cannot give further details.) Obviously, Mūller was flabbergasted.
Like Marco Tosatti, we have sought but may never be able to provide an explanation of the incident of the five questions from official channels. We can only say that our sources are not given to idle speculation. They are confident that the events transpired as they have been described.
For now, it is enough to note that under the present circumstances, even the skeptical would have a hard time dismissing a report of such an incident. The stories coming out of the Vatican are more incredible each day — and even the worst of them seem not to merit comment — or more importantly, correction — in the eyes of Church officials.
[Precisely! Because that has been the most obvious thing about these periodic reports of Bergoglio’s bad manners – no one in the Vatican establishment (press office or other Bergoglio surrogates) nor among the Bergoglian paladins, like Andrea Tornielli, for example, has even bothered to rebut these accounts. Perhaps they have become so inured to their master’s temper and foibles that they have come to take it for granted and will not rebut because they cannot rebut.]
July 11, 2017
Yet another apology...
Since I was led to Maike Hickson's story above by Marco Tosatti who translated most of it for his Italian readers on his blogpost yeserday, July 10, I did not notice that Tosatti had added an update towards the end of his post, namely:
There has been a development. We have received an e-mail from the Vatican spokesman Greg Burke which we are reporting, obviously in the light of the details revealed in 1Peter5: "Dear Marco, I read your piece today about Cardinal Mueller. I only have one thing to say: The reconstruction is totally false. I ask you to please publish what I am writing you. Thanks. Greg"
Is Burke referring to the details recounted by Hickson's German source? How does he know that 'the reconstruction is totally false'? Was he present, or was someone who was present tell him to say so - those being present, one gathers from the account, being the pope, Cardinal Mueller, and at some point, Mons. Gaenswein who reportedly told Mueller he should not wait for the pope to come back because that was it - audience over.
We can rule out Cardinal Mueller; I doubt Mons. Gaenswein was even questioned by Burke; which leaves us with Bergoglio who may have asked one of his flunkies to tell Burke to send the flat denial. If he had told Burke himself - like JPII would do with Navarro-Valls, picked up the phone and gave him the instructions - Burke might have been less laconic with his denial. Like, "Don't take my word for it, but I have it on the most unimpeachable source that the reconstruction is totally false". Let's see if Burke sent the same note to 1Peter5.
BTW, Fr Z, in reporting about Burke's note to Tosatti, writes: "I’ll just add that, when I read those tales [in 1P5], I was pretty skeptical. Also, Greg Burke doesn’t just make statements without consultation." OK, I can understand skepticism about 'the tales', but the second part of the comment seems to say Burke got instructions to write what he did.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/07/2017 22:54]