A recent Responsum ad Dubium was published by the DDF under Cardinal Fernandez, approved by Pope Francis, on the subject of who may be baptized, who may be godparents, and who may witness at Catholic weddings.

Muller’s opposition to the Pope

Unfortunately, Cardinal Gerhard Muller has repeatedly spoken out in opposition to Pope Francis, thereby scandalizing the faithful. See my previous post on the allegation of material heresy made by Muller against Pope Francis. This newest set of public remarks by Cardinal Muller might have the effect of influencing the faithful to distrust the Pope. It is also contrary to Canon law for Muller to use LifeSiteNews as his platform for speaking to the faithful against the Pope:

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

LifeSiteNews has many times attacked openly the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis as well as the Second Vatican Council. They have published the copious writings of archbishop Carlo Vigano, who has been arguing, for several years now, that Pope Francis is not a valid Pope and that he is imposing a false magisterium and a false Church (or anti-Church) over the true magisterium and true Church. Then, in Vigano’s article of 9 Nov 2023, the schismatic archbishop claims that Pope Francis is guilty of “methodical planning, malicious intent, and a stubborn desire to harm souls, discredit the Church, and offend the majesty of God.” [LifeSiteNews]

Cardinal Muller is violating Canon 831 by repeatedly publishing his writings with LifeSiteNews, thereby associating himself with a publication that frequently openly attacks the Roman Pontiff. Worse still, the Cardinal is making attacks on Pope Francis himself, though with less severity than Vigano and other authors at LifeSiteNews.

Baptism, Godparents, Weddings

The DDF under Cardinal Fernandez recently answered Dubia on baptism, godparents, and weddings regarding LGBTQ persons: English translation here. Immediately, the papal opponents cried out against this decision, condemning it in the strongest terms. This constant opposition to every decision of the Apostolic See on doctrine and discipline shows a refusal of the submission of will and intellect due to the non-infallible decisions of the Magisterium, especially the papal magisterium (Vatican II, LG 25).

Unfortunately, Cardinal Muller has joined this loose-knit group of papal opponents in publicly resisting decisions of the Roman Pontiff and in openly opposing him. Here is a summary of the questions at issue. The answers of the DDF to most of these questions was a qualified Yes. I’ll briefly quote from each response.

1. Can a transgender person be baptized?
1. in part: They “can receive baptism, under the same conditions as other believers, if there are no
situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the
faithful.”

2. Can a transgender person be a godfather or godmother at baptism?
2. in part: “Under certain conditions…. However … pastoral prudence demands
that it should not be allowed if there is a danger of scandal, undue legitimization or
disorientation in the educational sphere of the church community.”

3. Can a transgender person be a witness at a wedding?
3. in full: “There is nothing in current universal canon law that prohibits a transgender person
from being a witness in a marriage.”

4. Can two homo-affective persons be counted as parents of a child, who must be baptized, and who was adopted or gained by other methods such as surrogacy?
4. in full: “For the child to be baptized there must be a well-founded hope that he or she will be
educated in the Catholic religion (cf. can. 868 § 1, 2o CIC; can. 681, § 1, 1o CCEO).”

5. Can a person who is homo-affective and cohabiting be godfather to a baptized person?
5. in part: “According to canon 874 § 1, 1o and 3o CIC, anyone who possesses the aptitude (cf. 1o) and “leads a life in conformity with the faith and with the office he or she assumes” (3o ; cf. can. 685, § 2 CCEO) can be a godparent.”
And also: “due pastoral prudence demands that every situation be wisely weighed, in order to safeguard the sacrament of baptism and especially its reception”

6. Can a person who is homo-affective and cohabiting be a witness at a wedding?
6. in full: “There is nothing in current universal canon law that prohibits a homo-affective,
cohabiting person from being a witness to a marriage.”

The term “homoaffective” means same-sex attracted persons. It does not imply that a person acts on that attraction in sexual acts. But essentially, this document is on the subject of LGBTQ persons and their participation in certain Sacraments.

Notice that, when the above Responsum allows LGBTQ persons to participate in a Sacrament or liturgical service, there is sometimes a provision that calls for prudence and an evaluation of the circumstances.

My position

I support these decisions by the DDF with the approval of Pope Francis. Baptism with water is the ordinary path of salvation, and God wills that all human persons be saved. So the offer of salvation is universal. (Not all persons end up achieving salvation, due to the refusal to repent from actual mortal sin.) Due to the universal salvific will of God, the Church is obligated to offer baptism as widely as possible, including to gay or trans persons. It is for God to judge the souls of all persons, not the internet or the far-right subculture.

As for the baptism of a child whose parents are a same-sex couple, it would be gravely immoral for the Church to refuse the Sacrament of Baptism, the ordinary path of salvation, to an innocent child based on the presumed sins of the child’s legal parents or guardians. And none of the papal opponents, who would deny baptism to adults and to the children of certain adults, none applies the same standard to other objectively grave sins: contraception, abortifacient contraception, grave sexual sins committed by heterosexuals, grave sins against religion, such as: schism, heresy, refusing to accept the validity of Pope Francis, rejecting Vatican II (or even Vatican I), falsely accusing the Pope of apostasy, heresy or schism. And none of these persons who wish to deny to LGBTQ persons participation in the Sacrament and liturgical rites of the Church, none applies the same standard or even speaks a word of criticism against archbishop Carlo Vigano, who rejects the entire papacy of Pope Francis, rejects Vatican II, and believes that the Church has gone astray since Vatican II. His views are severely heretical and schismatic, and they don’t say that he should be denied the Sacraments.

Consider the woman caught in adultery. The Pharisees brought her before Jesus, and asked if the Scripture that calls for persons caught in adultery to be stoned should be applied to her. But if she was caught in adultery, where is the man who was also caught? Why wasn’t he charged by the Pharisees? Possibly he was a Pharisee himself, as the Pharisees kept themselves apart from other Jews (e.g. Sadducees, Herodians) and would not have had opportunity to catch a couple in adultery. So the Pharisees did not apply the same standard to themselves as they applied to this woman. They wanted her to be stoned to death (but the Romans did not permit it). But they did not apply the same standard to themselves, to the Pharisees. The same is true for these papal accusers, who wish to apply a harsh standard to the sins of LGBTQ persons as well as divorced and remarried heterosexuals, while refusing to hold themselves and their own accountable for worse sins. For sins against religion are generally and categorically worse than other types of sins.

[Matthew]
{23:13} So then: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! For you close the kingdom of heaven before men. For you yourselves do not enter, and those who are entering, you would not permit to enter.

The Pharisees of today are unrepentant from many manifest grave sins against religion: heresy; schism; malicious false accusations against Popes and Councils; scandalizing the faithful by attacking the faithful leaders of the Church; teaching false doctrine; defending perpetrators of abuse if they are conservative; assuming the guilty of the accused if they are liberal; supporting those who hate the Roman Pontiff and maligning those who defend him. Yet they receive say Mass and/or Communion; go to Confession and subsequently show no repentance from their public sins; commit public sins the penalty for which is automatic excommunication, and speak with malice against anyone who criticizes them or supports the Pope.

And what did Jesus say to the woman caught in adultery? “Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now do not choose to sin anymore.”

What did Jesus say to the Samaritan woman (Jn 4)? She followed a misguided version of Judaism, just as Protestants (and many misguided Catholics) follow an altered version of the true Christian faith. And she was cohabitating with someone who was not her husband. Yet Jesus taught her, and she began to influence others to believe in Him. Then Jesus stayed in the Samaritan town for two days, teaching. Jesus did not reject that woman because she was cohabitating, and He did not reject the Samaritans because they were following a disordered version of Judaism.

Jesus did not refuse salvation to the cohabitating women, nor to the woman caught in adultery. He would not refuse baptism to an LGBTQ person, nor certainly to the CHILD of a same-sex couple.

And when the disciples disputed among themselves, asking who among them was greater, Jesus rebuked them and gave the example of a little child. Then Jesus also said that one must become like a little child to enter the kingdom of Heaven. And He did not qualify these teachings to refer only to children whose parents have not committed certain categories of sins.

{18:6} But whoever will have led astray one of these little ones, who trust in me, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck, and to be submerged in the depths of the sea.

Those who deny the salvation offered by the Sacrament of Baptism, deny it even to little children, are in the same category as those who lead astray one of these little ones. For they do worse than lead them astray; they deny to them the Sacrament of entrance into the Church, the Ark of Salvation.

Now consider the story from Acts of the Apostles. A prison guard is about to take his own life, and hours later he is baptized.

{16:27} Then the prison guard, having been jarred awake, and seeing the doors of the prison open, drew his sword and intended to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had fled.
{16:28} But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying: “Do no harm to yourself, for we are all here!”
{16:29} Then calling for a light, he entered. And trembling, he fell before the feet of Paul and Silas.
{16:30} And bringing them outside, he said, “Sirs, what must I do, so that I may be saved?”
{16:31} So they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and then you will be saved, with your household.”
{16:32} And they spoke the Word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house.
{16:33} And he, taking them in the same hour of the night, washed their scourges. And he was baptized, and next his entire household.
{16:34} And when he had brought them into his own house, he set a table for them. And he was joyous, with his entire household, believing in God.

Who can read this Scripture and then claim that persons cannot be baptized because of their own past sins, even recent sins, or because of the sins of their parents? And why are only certain types of sins said to be able to deny Baptism, while other sins, even worse sins, are not mentioned at all?

On Cohabitating versus More Uxorio

The Responsum says: “Different is the case where the cohabitation of two homo-affective persons consists, not in a simple cohabitation, but in a stable and declared more uxorio relationship, well known to the community.”

The above statement from the DDF has been misrepresented by the papal accusers. The claim has been made (at OnePeterFive) that the first case is a same-sex couple cohabitating without sexual activity, and that only the second case includes sexual activity for the couple. That is not the case.

Cohabitation means living together with sexual activity outside of marriage. Then the term more uxorio is Latin for “in the manner of a wife” or, more loosely and commonly, “in the manner of a married couple” or “as if married”. The term is often used as a euphemism for sexual activity.

But in the context of this Responsum, the Latin phrase seem to be referring to a same-sex couple living together in a long-term or stable relationship, as if married. Both the first term, cohabitation, and the second term, more uxorio, include sexual activity. So the Latin phrase seems to add the condition of a stable publicly-known relationship. This aspect and its phrasing appear to be a reference to a section of Amoris Laetitia (“When a couple in an irregular union attains a noteworthy stability through a public bond”). However, that passage of AL refers to the divorced and remarried with children, or at least to heterosexual couples, as the sentence ends with a hope that the couple might be able to be married in the Church.

So the DDF seems to take the position that a stable relationship is perhaps an indication of some cooperation with actual graces, despite the objectively gravely disordered situation. The document does not clarify what the difference is or how it might affect being named a godparent. I don’t agree that there is a difference there that would affect the decision as to godparents.

I should also point out that, in the vast majority of cases today, the choice of godparent is treated by the parents as honorary, and does not indicate the permission of the parents for the godparents to take a role in the spiritual life of the child.

Contra Cardinal Muller

I have to disagree with several claims that Muller makes on this topic.

First, he says that “The dicastery’s answers to various questions from a Brazilian bishop (November 3, 2023) on the one hand remind us of generally known truths of faith, but on the other hand, they also open up to the misunderstanding that there is, after all, room for a coexistence of sin and grace in the Church of God.”

The Church on earth is comprised of fallen sinners. Jesus and Mary were each sinless — no original sin, no personal sin. But they are in Heaven. Every Pope, Bishop, priest, deacon, religious, and layperson is a sinner. Only the very young have no personal sins, yet. But they have concupiscence and will not be sinless as adults. The baptized receive the state of grace; then we cooperate with actual graces. The Church is certainly “full of grace”, like the Blessed Virgin Mary. But we are all sinners. So the Church on earth certainly always has room for the coexistence of sin and grace. That is the current state of the Church militant.

Muller says: “The oldest Church ordinance written in Rome (around 200 AD) names the criteria for the admission or rejection (or even deferral) [of a person] to the catechumenate and to the reception of baptism and demands that all dubious professions, illegal partnerships, and any immoral behavior that are contrary to the life of grace of baptism must be abandoned (Traditio Apostolica 15–16).”

The teaching of Jesus: “Therefore, be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:48) does not exclude from the Sacrament or from salvation those who fall far short of perfection. We are all called to abandon sin in favor of grace. But it is absurd to set a standard for reception of Baptism — which is only the beginning of the pilgrim way of Christians in this life — that demands perfection from the outset.

In fact Pope Saint John Paul II taught the following: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” That is from the Encyclical Mission of Redemption [RM 10]. This Pope Saint taught that salvation can be attained by those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and who have not received the Sacrament of Baptism. (They receive a baptism of desire or of blood, to attain the state of grace, of course.)

Then Pope Saint John Paul II goes further, saying, about non-Christians, that “divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. ” Notice that this Pope Saint taught that even some persons who “outwardly reject” the Church are saved by Christ and His Church, through implicit membership.

Christ offers salvation very broadly, but Cardinal Muller and others are seeking to narrow the path of salvation by limiting those who receive Baptism. And many of the papal opponents also claim that very few persons receive a baptism of desire or of blood (but I don’t know where Muller stands o this question).

Since persons who outwardly reject the Church can still be saved and can be implicit members in the Church, being a fallen sinner, even one who repeatedly falls into the same sins again and again (repenting again and again), does not deny salvation and should not deny Baptism.

Muller quotes St. Thomas: However, those “who are sinners because they come to baptism with the intention of continuing to sin” and thus resist the Holy Will of God cannot be baptized. But here is the full quote from the Summa: “Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should not be conferred.” [Summa, III, 68, 4].

Why does Thomas say “Secondly”? because his first point is that sinners should be baptized, regardless of their past sins, since baptism was “instituted specially for this purpose, that by it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away”. Therefore, a person can be baptized regardless of his or her past sins, including heterosexual sexual sins, homosexual sexual sins, and sins related to transgenderism.

The problem with Muller’s position, then, is that he assumes that persons who are LGBTQ are not repentant from past sins, and also assumes that their objectively grave sins are culpable to the full extent of actual mortal sins. For it would be a foolish and untenable position to claim that unrepentant actual venial sins prevent Baptism. Then we know that objectively grave sins are only mortal with full knowledge and full deliberation; otherwise they are venial as actual sins.

How will the priest or deacon who administers Baptism know that the candidate has “the intention of continuing to sin”? Similarly, how would a priest in Confession know that a penitent does not have a firm purpose of amendment? This is the same fault in the positions of the papal opponents, that they assume, only for certain types of sins, that the person has the intention to continue to sin. This cannot be known. The usual process for adult baptism certainly includes an examination of conscience and at least imperfect contrition. But we might consider, as in the case of the eunuch baptized by Philip, that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the full desire to follow Him includes at least implicit imperfect contrition — which is sufficient for a valid Baptism and the forgiveness of all sin and all punishment due for sin.

And this is also the teaching of St. Thomas in the Summa: “Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are being baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make when in accordance with the Church’s ritual they ‘renounce Satan and all his works.’ ” So Thomas considers that the sincere desire to be baptized into Christ and His Church, along with the usual “general confession” within the liturgical service for adult baptism, is sufficient to express the contrition needed for valid baptism.

Muller says: “It is confusing and harmful when the Magisterium relies on the terminology of a nihilistic and atheistic anthropology and thus seems to lend its untruthful content the status of a legitimate theological opinion in the Church.”

What does Jesus say?
[John]
{4:16} Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and return here.”
{4:17} The woman responded and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her: “You have spoken well, in saying, ‘I have no husband.’
{4:18} For you have had five husbands, but he whom you have now is not your husband. You have spoken this in truth.”

Jesus calls the companion of the Samaritan woman at the well “your husband”. She actually corrects him, as she realizes that the person with whom she has been cohabitating is not really her husband. But Jesus did not disdain to use the term that this woman was probably using in her community about that man: your husband.

There is nothing wrong with using the accepted terminology in society, while teaching Catholic truth. We can refer to same-sex marriage without putting marriage in “quotes”. We can use terms such as LGBTQ+, or trans, or MtF or FtM, or divorced and remarried.

Over at LifeSiteNews, they put the term “climate change” in quotes, apparently because they don’t think the climate change is real. I recall one article (I forget the source) criticizing Pope Francis where the word “decision” was in quotes, apparently because the author disliked the particular decision. That is not how quotations work. You can use a term without agreeing with its implications.

Muller: “In truth, transsexual or homophile (homoaffective or homosexual) persons do not exist, neither in the order of creaturely nature nor in the grace of the New Covenant in Christ.”

This above statement by Cardinal Muller is not Christ-like and does not show the Gospel principle to love your neighbor as yourself, or to love one another as Christ has loved you. You don’t have to agree with the view, prevalent in many nations and cultures today regarding LGBTQ persons. Many of these ideas are incompatible with Catholic Christian teaching. But it is reprehensible and malicious to proclaim that gay and trans “persons do not exist”.

Muller goes on to claim that all trans persons “have voluntarily allowed themselves to be deceived” regarding gender. This is the same error committed again and again on the far right, the assumption that we can know the interior state of another person — their will, intentions, alleged interior sins, alleged interior refusal to repent or to cooperate with grace — merely because of their exterior identity or past behavior. We see in persons who regret their transition and so undergo de-transition that many persons have been deceived by modern disordered ideology, and not by their own fault.

To the contrary, the Church teaches that a Catholic — even a Cardinal or Bishop — cannot know if he is even in the state of grace, without a specific rare divine revelation to that person. Cardinal Muller does not know for certain if he himself is in the state of grace, so he certainly cannot know the intentions, will, or state of grace of other persons. And since Muller is openly resisting the authority and teaching of the Roman Pontiff, he should work out his own salvation in fear and trembling, and not speak as if he were sinless, and as if Christ rejects all sinners.

Muller: “The doctrine and practice of the Roman Church clearly prescribes: “The harlot, the fornicating man, the one who mutilates himself, and anyone else who does something that is not spoken of (1 Cor 6:6-20) should be rejected [from the catechumenate and baptism]” (Traditio Apostolica 16).”

Note that Muller repeatedly cites the “Traditio Apostolica” of Hippolytus of Rome. That document does not present definitive teaching of the Church. It is merely an example of writings at the time on practices in the Church. Muller claims that the document “demands that all dubious professions, illegal partnerships, and any immoral behavior that are contrary to the life of grace of baptism must be abandoned (Traditio Apostolica 15–16).” But here is a more revealing selection from that section:

“They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are brought forward for instruction. If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall cease or shall be rejected. If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. If someone teaches children (worldly knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other) trade, let him be permitted.” [Trad. Ap. 16]

Notice that if one is sinning, he must cease in order to be accepted as a catechumenate or for baptism. But the document also condemns certain professions, including acting and teaching children. Hilariously, those teaching children ought to cease, unless they have no other possible occupation! This document and that particular section is not suitable as a basis for rejecting persons for the Sacrament of Baptism when the current Roman Pontiff has ruled that they are to be admitted!! Muller’s arguments against the decision of the Apostolic See do not take into account that the Roman Pontiff and the DDF have the authority to decide these questions, and have made their decision. Rome has decided, the case is closed. The document of ancient practices in the Church, written by St. Hippolytus, does not present sufficient authority to bind Catholics today to that discipline, nor to overrule the Roman Pontiff.

Muller claims that “the good shepherd ‘rejoices more with heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous who [in false self-assessment] have no need to repent.’ (Luke 15:6)”

Notice the change that Cardinal Muller makes to the words of Jesus in the Gospel!!! He adds the accusation that the ninety-nine sheep, whom Jesus tells us “have no need to repent”, actually do need to repent because their self-assessment was false that they don’t need repentance. Here Cardinal Muller is openly contradicting the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the ancient constant interpretation of this Gospel verse by the Church. In addition, I must again point out that Muller assumes to know the interior state of other persons, in this case that the 99 followers of Christ are actually falsely assessing their own consciences.

A fallen sinner, who follows Christ, can be free from all actual mortal sin, and can repent and be forgiven from venial sin by daily examination of conscience, prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy. Such persons fit the description given by Jesus as having no need to repent. They only commit venial sins, and these are forgiven by God through a daily devout spiritual life.

Muller then goes on to imply that children who are the result of surrogate motherhood or IVF (or other laboratory means) should not be baptized.

This blaming of the children for the sins of the parents is wicked and unchristian. The Church and the Lord Jesus have taught no such thing. The Roman Pontiff just recently ruled, in the DDF Responsum we are discussing, that children can be baptized, even if their parents are a same-sex couple. And this implies that other issues due to the decisions or sins of the parents do not affect the right of the child to be baptized into Christ, under the universal salvific will of God.

Muller is treating certain children as things to be discarded, and not like persons made in the image of God and called unto Christ and His Church, because those children were the result of surrogacy or IVF or the like. May God correct him.

Muller seeks to limit baptism to the cases of a child “when his or her Catholic upbringing can be guaranteed by those in responsibility, especially also through an exemplary life.” This is too narrow a discipline, given the universal salvific will of God — which is dogma. And it is contrary to the discipline established by the Apostolic See.

Muller ends his article with a distorted quote from St. Hippolytus. Again, Muller uses words in brackets in order to change the meaning of the text: “For the many heresies have arisen because the rulers [bishops] did not want to be instructed in the teachings of the apostles, but acted according to their own judgment and not as was proper.”

The original text was not referring to bishops but to rulers who rebelled against the teachings of the apostles. Which bishops does Muller think are the source of many heresies? Unfortunately, Muller’s recent public expressions leave no doubt that he is referring to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, and also to the Prefect of the DDF, Cardinal Fernandez.

So this quote from Hippolytus really applies to Cardinal Muller, not the Roman Pontiff. He is the one who is spreading false doctrines, and who is refusing to be instructed by the teachings of the successor of the Apostle Peter, and is instead acting according to his own judgment. This is seen clearly in Muller’s rejection of the teachings and discipline of the Pope, as well as in his distortion of the Gospel passage on the ninety-nine sheep who do not need to repent.

Ronald L Conte Jr