Here is the article by Cardinal Muller at First Things: The Church Is Not A Democracy (27 Oct 2023). My post is a commentary and reply to the assertions made by Cardinal Muller on the Synod and the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Muller: “Rest assured that even if a majority of the delegates were to “decide” on the “blessing” (blasphemous and contrary to Scripture itself) of homosexual couples, or the ordination of women as deacons or priests, even the authority of the pope would not be sufficient to introduce or condone such heretical teachings, or any other teachings that contradict the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the dogma of the Church. Christ commissioned Peter to strengthen his brethren in their faith in him, the Son of God, not to introduce doctrines and practices contrary to revelation. To teach contrary to the apostolic faith would automatically deprive the pope of his office. We must all pray and work courageously to spare the Church such an ordeal.”

Notice the contradiction in the above quote. Cardinal Muller asserts, as if with definitive authority, that certain possible future decisions of the Roman Pontiff, subsequent to the Synod, would be heretical teachings. Then Muller asserts that a Pope might teach heresy and thereby automatically lose his office. Is there no possibility that Cardinal Muller might teach heresy or commit schism, and thereby automatically lose his authority?

Pope Leo XIII: “From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest.” [Satis Cognitum 15]

It is much disputed whether a Pope can teach heresy, and also whether a Pope would be automatically removed if he did so. (I will discuss that point further on.) But it is not in dispute at all that a Bishop or Cardinal who commits formal heresy or formal schism is automatically “deprived of the right and power of ruling.” For any such act, by its very nature, separates the individual believer from the Church. Canon law also states a penalty of latae sententiae (or automatic) excommunication for formal heresy, formal schism, or apostasy.

There is a serious problem with Muller’s two assertions:
(1) that certain teachings are heretical and not even the Pope can rule otherwise, and
(2) that a Pope loses his authority if he does teach these things condemned by Muller
Muller assumes that he himself cannot be in heresy. But magisterial teaching, Canon law, and the history of the Church clearly show that a Bishop or Cardinal can fall away by heresy or schism. Muller further assumes that his own judgment cannot err on which teachings are “contrary to the apostolic faith”. Then he speaks so as to deprive the Roman Pontiff of the same authority and indefectibility that he assumes for himself. Muller thinks the Pope can teach heresy, while assuming that he himself cannot. Muller states that the Pope would have no authority to teach whatever Muller condemns as heresy, and no authority to decide, contrary to Muller’s opinion, what is and is not heresy. In effect, Muller (and other critics speaking in a similar way) are implicitly attributing to themselves indefectibility and infallibility, while depriving the Pope of the same.

A Pope can issue a new definition of doctrine, infallibly, and can therefore condemn contrary ideas as heresy. A Cardinal cannot do so. Pope Francis could follow the Synod with an exercise of papal infallibility and teach whatever truths the Holy Spirit guides him to teach. Each Roman Pontiff does in fact have the authority, even without an exercise of infallibility, to decide which doctrines to teach and which to condemn. No Cardinal or small group of Bishops has the authority to overrule such a decision, even under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.

Muller gives two examples of alleged heresies that the Pope supposedly cannot teach without losing his office automatically, phrased as Muller has chosen:
(1) “the ‘blessing’ (blasphemous and contrary to Scripture itself) of homosexual couples,”
(2) “or the ordination of women as deacons or priests,”

Now the ordination of women as priests has been decided definitively by Pope Saint John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and Pope Francis has repeatedly said this cannot change. So it is just a false accusation to say that Pope Francis might approve of ordaining women as priests.

However, the ordination of women as deacons has never been decided by an Ecumenical Council, nor by a Roman Pontiff in any definitive teaching. It is therefore not dogma that women cannot be ordained deacons, and not heresy to propose that this might be included in the authority of the Church. Cardinal Muller is usurping the authority of the Roman Pontiff by making such a declaration, not only that ordination of women as deacons is (supposedly) impossible and heretical; but also that the Roman Pontiff has no authority to overrule Muller, and that the Roman Pontiff would lose his office if he were to teach contrary to Muller’s judgment on women deacons.

And if you read many sources on the idea of women deacons, no one cites or quotes any source as a definitive decision of the Magisterium. Those who oppose the ordination of deaconesses only make theological arguments; they never cite a definitive decision of the Magisterium. It is an open theological question. Right now, Catholics are free to opine and argue for either position, that the Church has the authority to ordain women to the diaconate, or that the Church does not. But to claim that one position is heresy, and that if the Pope teaches the contrary, he loses his office, is a schismatic assertion. It is a rejection of submission to the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, as well as a rather ridiculous assertion that one’s own teaching on the subject is definitive and inarguable.

Muller: “the ‘blessing’ (blasphemous and contrary to Scripture itself) of homosexual couples,”

On the blessing of persons, Muller makes the same type of error. He asserts that his understanding is certainly true and the contrary is both contrary to Scripture and blasphemous. He further asserts (see the full quote) that any decision by the Roman Pontiff contrary to Muller’s own judgment is heresy and would deprive the Pope of his office automatically. But certainly it is possible for any individual Bishop or Cardinal to teach heresy or to err gravely in doctrine or discipline in other ways. And no individual Cardinal or Bishop has the authority to teach definitively in contradiction to the Roman Pontiff. Muller lacks infallibility and indefectibility. He can teach what he believes to be correct doctrine based on Tradition and Scripture; but he cannot presume to teach with such alleged certitude and definitiveness that if the Roman Pontiff disagrees, the Pope would be in heresy and automatically removed from office — for disagreeing with an individual Cardinal !!!

There are many Cardinals and very many Bishops in the Church. It cannot be the case that the Pope is guilty of heresy and automatically removed from office for disagreeing with any one of them. The Cardinals and Bishops have varying opinions and sometimes contradictory ideas about doctrine. It would be impossible for a Pope to be in agreement with every single Cardinal and Bishop. Then it is the sin of pride for Cardinal Muller to exalt himself above the body of Bishops in order to issue a definitive teaching or judgment, and to presume to bind the Pope to Muller’s decision on doctrine and discipline, even to the extent that the Pope should be considered removed if he disagrees with Muller. Such is not the structure of the Church designed by Christ.

Instead, Peter and his successors have the charism of truth and never-failing faith, and by this charism, each Pope confirms the body of Bishops in the same faith [Lk 22:32]. The Bishops, only as a body, not as individuals, participate in this charism of truth and never-failing faith as long as their belief is confirmed by the successor of Peter. This has been the ancient constant teaching of the Church, infallibly confirmed by Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4, n. 6-7.

Now the Magisterium has no infallible teaching on the issuing of blessings to persons or to relationships. However, the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium of the Holy See — approved by Pope Francis — is as follows. The CDF previously issued this ruling, under Pope Francis and with his approval:

CDF: “It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex,” the CDF wrote. “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”
[…]
“The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.” [Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, 15.03.2021]

The position of Pope Francis on blessings, stated above, is clearly orthodox. God abundantly blesses sinners with the Sacrament of Baptism, which forgives all sin and all punishment due for sin, and with the Sacrament of Penance, which forgives all sin. No matter what the sin, God forgives those who are repentant (as taught by the Church). These two great blessings, these two Sacraments, are given to sinners regardless of how much they have sinned, if they are at least repentant with imperfect contrition. So it cannot be said that the Church is unable to bless any sinners at all with a blessing that is a sacramental.

However, as blessings are sacramentals, the Church can change Her discipline regarding blessings within a range of judgments. For the granting or withholding of blessings depends in part on whether a blessing might be misunderstood, in a certain circumstance. Judgment of temporal circumstances varies from time to time and place to place.

Here I must point out the hypocrisy in Muller’s position on blessings. He would deny blessings from the Church to homosexual persons, due to their sins; but he himself sins by grave scandal in openly opposing the Roman Pontiff and possibly by the sin of schism (since he has stated he would accuse the Pope of heresy and consider him to be automatically removed from office, if the Pope teaches contrary to Muller’s understanding on blessings or on ordination). Sins against religion are among the worst sins. And sins that occur very publicly, so as to influence many persons toward the same sins, are also particularly grave. So how is it that gay persons are to be denied blessings, but persons who sin gravely against the Church consider themselves worthy to receive Communion and worthy to judge and condemn the Pope?

This is part 1 of my article. Part 2 will consider the claim that Popes might commit heresy or be removed from office.

Ronald L Conte Jr