Rorate Coeli has published a tiresome article by Roberto de Mattei (i.e., a conservative -but not traditional- historian) on the subject of Cardinal Muller’s recent removal from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which can be read here.

The article is more or less a lamentation for the “loss” of Muller in the CDF, and I say it is tiresome, because the general premise of the article is that the Church would be much better off had only cardinal Muller argued publicly and vigorously what was really on his mind, rather than being “discreet” and “prudent” for the sake of surviving Francis, thereby preventing the Pope from replacing him with a liberal.

And that brings us directly to the cause of fatigue: This is just another EWTN-style article promoting the so-called conservatives over the liberals, as though the one were any better or worse than the other.

In American politics, it is like arguing in favor of Republicans over Democrats, even though both are heading in the same direction, and the only difference being that the latter are trotting at a faster pace than the former.

Somehow the loss of the “Conservative Muller” is a hit to the Church, and yet this same heretical prelate:

  1. Denies the reality of transubstantiation in his 2002 book “Die Messe” here
  2. Denies the reality of the Resurrection in his book “Katholische Dogmatik” here

Question: What value to the Church is such a man?

Answer: None, and it is debatable whether he is even a member of it!

And yet, his dismissal is a big deal, because Francis has now replaced him with one who is presumably even worse than him?


I would rather have a blatant heretic whose artifices are more recognizable (and therefore more easily defended, and deceiving fewer souls) than a Muller or a Ratzinger, who pretend to be traditional with a more clever approach.

“Why?  Are you saying Francis was better than Benedict XVI?”

Because the flagrant heretic is more likely to induce a counter-revolution than the more subtle and clever Mullers and Ratzingers, et al.

So from this perspective, at the end of the day, this article by Mattei does more harm than good: It pretends the Mullers, the Burkes, the Brandmullers, et al are champions to be supported and followed, while it is only the most blatant (honest?) modernists who are to be opposed.

People making that conclusion only perpetuate and cement the dire situation in the Church: A prelate to champion and support is one who has flushed Vatican II down the toilette, and so far as I can tell, there isn’t a one among them in the entire world.

Mattei did, however, make one interesting point (and it is one which the internal Resistance should meditate upon):

“The moral of this story is that those who do not fight in order not to lose, after conceding, they experience defeat.”