Six days before he enters the Sistine Chapel to cast his vote for the election of the next pope, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2012-17), theologian and author of many books, granted this interview to America’s Vatican correspondent and two other journalists in his private apartment in the Vatican on May 1.
Pope Francis made him a cardinal in his first consistory in 2014, and in the interview, he spoke about Francis, his personal relationship with the pope, his criticisms of some of Francis’ statements, what he’s looking for in the next pope and how he feels as he enters the conclave.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Gerard O’Connell: What is the atmosphere like in the synod hall?
Cardinal Müller:There’s a good climate of collegiality. Some speak of continuity with the pontificate of Francis; that’s normal. A pope cannot create a rupture with his predecessor, theologically speaking. The future pope is not the successor of the previous pope but the successor of Peter. Each pope is the successor of Peter, and that’s why it’s important to recall what Jesus said to Simon, the first Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” This is founded on Peter’s confession, and it unites all the faithful, all the bishops in faith in Jesus, the Son of God.
You’ve often been critical of Pope Francis. What did you not like about him? What surprised you most about him?
I’ve always said I was critical, but that’s not entirely true. It’s not true because I must distinguish between the mission and the office of the pope. That’s part of the Catholic and apostolic faith. I have also written many books, some at the pope’s request. In fact, he asked me to write a book against modern Gnosticism. I gave it to him when he declared St. Irenaeus of Lyon—who was a great opponent of ancient Gnosticism—a Doctor of the Church. I told him that this was one of the most important decisions of his pontificate.
Many praise this pope for his engagement with the poor; that’s a fundamental dimension of the church. Caritas is part of the church’s mission: liturgy, proclamation and service. These are the church’s three great functions. But Pope Francis was also concerned with doctrine. He always said—especially regarding misunderstandings about liberation theology—that liberation theology doesn’t speak only about social issues. It is a theology that speaks about God. We cannot give the poor only bread; we must also give them the bread of the Eucharist, the love of God and faith in God.
Was there something very personal that touched your heart in your relationship with Francis?
Yes, something very personal. When my brother had a terrible accident—he was severely burned alive—Pope Francis wrote me a very heartfelt, warm letter. It was in 2018; it was a work-related accident. Francis was very concerned.
Another personal thing: We also talked about Gustavo Gutiérrez, with whom I co-wrote three books. One of them is The Poor Church for the Poor. Pope Francis wrote the preface. Gutiérrez is fully integrated in the church’s theological framework. I think Pope Francis received him three times at Santa Marta, precisely to clear up any doubts about the orthodoxy of his theology. People said liberation theology was Marxism introduced into the church, but that’s not true. I’m a theology professor, and I am able to read other theologians’ works. Gustavo Gutiérrez said: We don’t do political sociology as such, we do theology. We speak of God. And how can we speak of God’s love for all people without helping those who suffer? Mothers who have nothing to feed their children. People in miserable conditions. Those without access to education. That’s why [while] I am often tough, I have personal memories. And there are others, too.
You spoke earlier of continuity between Peter’s successors, but wasn’t there some rupture between Francis and Benedict XVI? For example, his openness toward gay people, toward Islam. What do you think of that openness?
There was no rupture in the church’s doctrine because no pope can change doctrine. The church’s doctrine is based on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today.
So is the rupture more in form?
In form, in style. Also in his pastoral orientation. But one cannot say that previous popes were not concerned about the poor. They were. From Leo XIII, with Catholic social teaching, to John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In “Deus Caritas Est,” Benedict said that charity is not something secondary; it is central because it expresses God’s love for others. So we can’t create this contradiction. Of course, it’s convenient for the media to use these dualistic concepts: Pope Ratzinger was this, Pope Francis is that. Ratzinger was a theology professor, clearly. Pope Francis has a different background—a Latin American mentality, distinct from the German one.
And even before [him], the church was always open to people in difficult situations—divorced people, people with homosexual tendencies. But that’s different from ideologies. We in the church are concerned with the salvation of all people, including sinners. But some ideologies—like the L.G.B.T. ideology—seek to redefine marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman. That’s against creation. Jesus elevated marriage between a man and a woman to the dignity of a sacrament. There is no alternative to that. So we must distinguish between the church’s pastoral concern for the salvation of all and these ideological trends. In this sense, Pope Francis said “all, all, all”—and that’s not a contradiction. God wants all people to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ.
Pope Francis had a good heart. He wanted to convey the message that the church’s teaching on sin doesn’t mean people with problems are excluded. He always, for example, condemned abortion, but said that people who have had abortions can return to the church and receive forgiveness. But when someone says abortion isn’t a grave sin, that’s different. Abortion kills a human being. Pope Francis never denied that. Even when speaking off-the-cuff or in ways not always fully developed, he did it out of mercy.
Do you agree with Pope Francis that the church must be inclusive, not exclusive?
The church is always inclusive, but it must not be indifferent to people’s situations. Jesus began by calling everyone to conversion. We are all sinners; we all need conversion. Conversion is not about obeying impersonal rules; it’s about doing God’s will. The Ten Commandments are not military regulations. God is not a general. He is our Father, who loves us and guides his people, Israel, even when they resisted him—just as we often do.
Are the kinds of issues being discussed now, issues about the state of the church in the world?
No, these topics are being discussed less. What’s more commonly discussed is the state of humanity today: the new atheism, this idea of self-redemption, self-creation, globalism led by super-billionaires who want to “save” the world according to their own ideas. These are the great challenges for the church. The church must reconcile all these groups.
Many have said: The church is the sacrament of intimate union with God, and also of the unity of humanity. The papacy has enormous moral authority. Our Pope Francis was the only moral authority left in the world. Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping—they have no moral authority. Of all today’s world leaders, only the pope has [moral authority]. He is the reference point of faith.
The next pope
So you see the papacy as a force for unity?
First and foremost, it’s an ecclesial mission: representing the faith and unity of the church. But also, regarding the world, Islam, other religions and politics, the pope’s mission is to unify peoples and overcome these collective egoisms that drive wars.
In your view, what qualities should the next pope have?
Objective qualities: He must represent the unity of the faith and its diversity within the depositum fidei. The pope must be orthodox—obviously he can’t be an Arian. Orthodox because even with all the councils, everything depends on the authority of the pope. In the Catholic Church, papal authority is formal, not material. The foundations are Scripture, Tradition, the decisions of previous councils or the pope speaking ex cathedra. But our [last] pope has not made any ex cathedra declarations. So not everything he says on the faith is irreversible. The reform of the Curia, for instance, can certainly be changed.
So do you think that the new pope could, for example, undo the allowance for laypeople and women to head dicasteries, like the prefect Simona Brambilla? Could he say: “That’s over now”?
Formally, yes, he could.
So there could be a step backward?
It doesn’t depend on every position in the Vatican. There’s no issue with laypeople per se. We’ve all said: Some offices in the church require ordination. But for all the others, they’re open.
He could say: “We’re changing this part of the ‘Praedicate Evangelium’ constitution.”
Everything that concerns ecclesiastical law, the pope can change. They’ve changed it before. But not divine law; that cannot be changed. You can’t say a bishop is just a delegate of the pope. A bishop, by ordination, is a representative of Christ, in communion with the pope. That cannot be changed.
But, yes, he could change the constitution of the Vatican City State; that’s not part of the church’s divine constitution. And when we talk about a dicastery—a ministry of the pope—the pope can establish who leads it. But when we talk about, say, the College of Cardinals, or the heads of the Roman Curia [offices], that’s an ecclesial, not civil, body. It’s clear those should be led by cardinals. But we always have to frame things within a theological and ecclesiological context—not just in terms of regression or progress.
What about the synod? You were very opposed to it. Do you think the next pope might change course? Francis had even called another session for October 2028.
All the cardinals are united in wanting clarity about the concepts. A synod of bishops is not part of the magisterium. It can be a helpful institutional form for involving the cooperation of all church members. Based on the common priesthood of all the faithful, we can hold synodal assemblies of the faithful in various regions, or even for the universal church. But the synod itself—it’s a vague concept. What exactly is a synod? A synod of bishops? A synod with laypeople?
The pope formed the C9 council of cardinal advisors. How do you evaluate this? Do you think the next pope should continue in this direction?
It’s something everyone should discuss. Many have said it’s important to hold more frequent meetings—not just once in 10 years, as Pope Francis did. They have said the whole College of Cardinals should meet at least once a year. Because the cardinals don’t just represent themselves; they represent the universal church. This is important because the Petrine ministry is not a solitary one. The pope is not just the head of the universal church but also the bishop of Rome. And the College of Cardinals is the presbyterate of the church of Rome for the sake of the universal church. So the pope always needs to consult; not everything can be known by one person. Before making decisions that affect the whole church, it’s very important to listen to competent representatives of the church of Rome, who are the cardinals.
You said the cardinals have only met once in 10 years. Have you found that to be a problem inside the general congregations? Some cardinals told me, “I don’t even know the others.”
That’s a big problem. Not just a question of knowing their names but also of knowing their personalities, having spoken with them, exchanged thoughts. To have a sense of: Who is this person who may carry great responsibility as pope? We must find the right person for this task. We are instruments of the Holy Spirit. Still, we are not mechanical instruments. We must be intelligent instruments.
In the 2005 and 2013 conclaves, there was a clear figure who stood out, but many are saying that now, among the 135 electors, there’s no one like that. Do you agree?
Yes.This is always a bit of a problem with modern popes, in the age of mass media. The pope has become the church’s sole media figure. The other bishops remain in the shadows. And we must reflect on this. The pope is not the “parish priest of the world,” as some say. That’s not true. The parish priest of a parish is the local shepherd. He directly represents Jesus Christ.
This isn’t just a problem with Pope Francis—it goes back to the 19th century, with Pius IX, with a certain populism. We need to find a solution because the church does not exist only in Rome. Rome is important, but it is not the center of the church. The center of the church is Jesus Christ. Even in the Amazon, when the Eucharist is celebrated, it’s the same Eucharist as at St. Peter’s. The pope is the visible principle of unity, but not the center. Some have spoken of “the church of Francis”—a theologian cannot accept that. There is no “church of Benedict” or “church of Francis.” It is always the church of Christ, whose visible representative is the current pope.
Creating confusion
Some people say Pope Francis created confusion. But I’ve been here nearly 40 years, and I remember when John Paul II held the interreligious meeting in Assisi in 1986, he, too, was accused of creating confusion, and Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t even attend that meeting. Do you think that accusation is fair when applied to Francis?
It was the same with Paul VI. There was great confusion in the church then. But ultimately, it always depends a bit on style. The pope is not the commander of an army.
But has Francis created confusion? Is what we need now a return to order?
Order in the sense that we need to clarify the relationship between doctrine and pastoral care. Pope Francis, when speaking off-the-cuff, was not presenting magisterial teaching; those were personal opinions.
Like the first time he said “Who am I to judge?”.
Yes, he meant something clear by that, but some have interpreted it as if the church has nothing to say on that topic. He was referring to an individual person. The pope cannot judge a person’s soul.
But one could also say that Jesus created confusion.
In a certain sense, he provoked contradiction, yes. He was a sign of contradiction. But not confusion. That’s something else. He caused confrontation, but he did not make contradictory declarations.
For example, the blessing of same-sex couples: Do you think that’s another thing that creates confusion?
Yes because that declaration says “We don’t want to change church doctrine,” but then the concrete application isn’t clear. It must visibly conform to doctrine. We can’t say, on the one hand, here’s the doctrine, and on the other, here’s the pastoral approach. Christ is both teacher and shepherd. This idea of “doctrine for everyone” but “pastoral care for individuals” is delicate. We had a theology professor who used to say: “From the pulpit, a priest should be a lion; in the confessional, a lamb.” Those are two different settings: one for proclaiming the truth of the Gospel, the other for applying it to the individual.
It’s always been that way. But in these moments, you can’t do pastoral care through a general document. A document addresses all people. But a pastor, or someone responsible for others, must apply that teaching to each concrete situation.
So you can’t say, “Bless all gay couples who ask for it.” You have to evaluate each case.
You have to study each case, yes. And even then, you’re not blessing “the couple”—you’re blessing the individual. It’s always been that way. So where’s the novelty in this document? When someone here in Rome asks me for a blessing, I don’t ask, “Are you Muslim? Are you…whatever?”
So that document wasn’t necessary?
No, it wasn’t necessary.
And did it create confusion, in your opinion?
Yes. All the Orthodox churches have rejected it. They’ve said: If ecumenism ends up like this, it’s not worth it. Why create problems when the previous situation was clearer, even if not entirely clear? Pope Francis wanted to speak the truth, but we should ask local pastors to apply it sensitively to concrete individuals.
John Paul II reached out to other religions. So did Francis in his own significant way. Do you think that ability to relate to other religions is a necessary quality for the next pope?
Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue are paths already taken by Vatican II. The Council made this obligatory for the church, not just for the pope but for all bishops, priests and theologians. But one must distinguish between interreligious dialogue and religious relativism. It’s too easy to say, “All religions are the same.” We must be discerning. If all religions are true religions—that is, if they are oriented toward God, the creator of all people—then they have a shared responsibility for world peace. We can’t leave that just to politicians.
You’re often seen as the leader of the more traditional, conservative sector of the church. Do you feel comfortable with that label?
I don’t know why. I’ve always been orthodox, not conservative or liberal. Those are ideological, political categories. We should think in terms of orthodoxy and heresy. There’s no such thing as an “orthodox conservative” baptism or a “liberal” baptism. The truth is the truth.
Some have even used the word heresy—especially in the United States—saying this pope is heretical because, for example, he washed the feet of Muslim women.
Someone once asked me about whether the pope could be a heretic. I said: Theologically, we must distinguish between formal and material heresy. Some popes in history—like Honorius I—were materially heretical.
Material heresy is when a pope says something unclear, ambiguous. Formal heresy is when he issues a declaration—say, a papal bull—that explicitly contradicts revealed truth. That’s not the case here.
So if he just doesn’t express himself clearly, that’s not heresy?
Correct.
Would Pope Francis be materially heretical, perhaps, but not formally?
For example, when he told the little boy whose atheist father had died that his father might be in heaven. Some said, “The pope denies hell.” But he was expressing hope in God’s mercy.
All the councils—even the last one—affirm that we cannot know someone’s interior disposition at the final moment. Just because someone says “I don’t believe in God” doesn’t mean we know what they believed at the end. That’s why the church has never definitively said someone is in hell. We can pray for everyone.
So Pope Francis would not have committed heresy in saying such things, but perhaps those statements caused confusion?
Yes, some things were unclear and could be interpreted in different ways.
So that moment with the boy—when the pope said “Your father is in heaven”—was that the wrong thing to say?
The correct way to answer would be: “Let’s wait and hope.” Because we can’t know. But no one expects the pope to speak dogmatically at every moment. He wasn’t giving a theological treatise. Pope Benedict was always theologically precise. Pope Francis was more pastoral.
Looking to the conclave
The last two conclaves lasted just two days. How long do you think this will be since as you said no candidate clearly stands out?
It depends on the result of the first votes. If one candidate reaches close to 90 votes, the rest may follow. But if the situation is confused, not very clear, then it could take longer.
Were you surprised by the huge crowds at the funeral in St. Peter’s Square, along the route and at the Saint Mary Major basilica?
I think the whole world is interested. There are 4,000 journalists here. The whole Catholic world is praying for the pope. Everyone is hoping for a good new pope, in continuity with the other good popes throughout history. Yes, there were some questionable ones in the Renaissance—but we don’t want to go back to that. We clearly want a pope who is religious, not secularized, in that sense.
There’s been a lot of talk about the papacy returning to Italy after 47 years.
I think this talk of nationalism—national egotism—is misplaced. Someone who thinks with a Catholic mind is always open to where the Holy Spirit is pointing. If the next 10 popes come from Africa, and someone has a problem with that, it would be ridiculous.
As you prepare to vote in the conclave, how do you feel?
I pray to the Holy Spirit every day for good inspiration. It’s a huge responsibility for the church and for the future of the church.
We must avoid thinking in worldly categories. Pope Francis always spoke against worldliness, so we shouldn’t introduce worldly labels like “conservative” or “progressive.” We must think in terms of theology and spirituality. Because theology cannot be an abstract theory; it must be inspired by the Spirit. That’s how we must think.
