Müller's Wacky Notion of Miracle is a Cover for His Unorthodox Views

In an interview for the EWTN controlled National Catholic Register Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller was asked about those troubling things he wrote in the past about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. What he wrote is at best ambiguous. They at best appear to deny that the Virgin Mary remained, physically, a virgin after childbirth, and they at best appear to deny that Christ is present, whole and entire in the Eucharist, to include His most blessed corporality. After attacking his critics, he offered this about miracles in general:

Concerning miracles, we have to remember that the primary object of our faith is the action of God; the secondary object is what God did inclusively in the material dimension. It is not enough to say that miracles are an inexplicable action—something totally exceptional within the material world—that prove God’s existence. Rather, the miracles performed by Jesus reveal that he is our divine Savior who came to heal a world wounded by sin. So, for instance, when Jesus performed a miracle, such as the healing of the sick man, the first aspect to look at is not the mere suspension of the natural order. The first priority is to examine the fact that God has healed this person who needed to be healed; the suspension of the laws of nature are a consequence of this divine intervention. Often, people don’t understand this perspective of the faith.

Traditionally, a miracle has always been understood as an exceptional event wherein the laws of nature, or the proper course of nature, are suspended by an intervening divine power. According to the traditional understanding, the suspension of the laws of nature is not an unintended consequence of the divine intervention, but is something directly willed by God. Miracles do not encompass the whole of the divine activity, but is only a certain kind of divine activity.

God is the efficient cause of all things that exist. He is that external entity by which all things have their being. Thus, God’s action is not always miraculous. Nature runs its course because of God’s action. What’s more, if God were for a single moment to suspend His regard for creation, all of creation, at that very instant, would cease to exist.

This distinction seems to have been lost in Müllers notion of miracles. Archbishop Müller is incorrect when he makes the contention that the primary object of faith, in regards to miracles, is God’s action. Man can, and often does, have faith in God’s action without having witnessed any miracles. It is unlikely, but I don't think it inconceivable that a man could have faith in God’s action without having even heard of miracles. It is also true that a man can lack faith in God’s action after having heard of or, even, after having witnessed a miracle first hand. Some people lack faith, and no manner of miracle will convince them that God is working in the world for whatever purpose.

The reason is that the primary object of faith, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, and this is in regards to any given subject up for discussion, is always God, Himself. Man must have faith in God prior to having faith in God’s action. The man who does not believe in God certainly doesn't believe that God created the world, or that God forgives sins or that God will judge his soul after death. Thus, it stands to reason, that God is the primary object of faith.

Faith, as a theological virtue is granted by God, but there are external motives which move us to believe. These two external motives are prophecy and miracles. With a miracle, God directly wills to suspend the laws of nature, primarily for His own glory, and only secondarily to confirm true doctrine. Scripture tells us that it was Jesus’ miracles that confirmed His authority, not that they were primarily object lessons explicating His teachings, as Müller seems to be saying in his interview. The primary object of faith in regard to Jesus’ miracles was His own glory, as belongs to Him by virtue of Him being God incarnate.

This is why we cannot speak of the suspension of the laws of nature as a secondary consequence of the divine action as does Müller. Rather, the suspension of the natural order is directly willed by Jesus for the primary purpose of revealing His glory, His power, His authority. After all, no man will believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Savior who came to heal a world wounded by sin, unless, of course, he already is convinced of God’s existence, God’s power and majesty, and that Jesus Christ is, indeed, God incarnate. The first thing to be regarded in the miracles of our Blessed Lord is not the many and, albeit fruitful, didactic lessons to be learned in the miracles. The first thing to regard in a miracle is the fact that Jesus Christ is God and, as such, He has the power to do whatever He wills. Thus, it is critically important that we understand that the laws and course of nature really are suspended, otherwise, the miracle is no miracle at all, and Jesus’ authority is unconfirmed.

In order to justify what he wrote in the past about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, that the laws of nature really weren't suspended in the “material dimension”, Archbishop Müller must subtly craft a new understanding of miracles that focuses instead on didactic lessons rather than the nature of Christ the miracles were intended to reveal. The same is true in regards to the Eucharist. Müller stated that the Eucharist is not Jesus Christ, whole and entire, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, but instead plainly offered the theory of transignification. Now that he is unwilling to take these remarks back, for whatever reason, he is forced to obfuscate in regards to miracles in general, denying the importance of their materiality.

The material nature of a miracle, that Jesus’ miracles really did suspend the laws of nature, should no longer be regarded, the new head of the CDF seems to be saying. What is important, Müller tells us, is the secondary “object of faith”: what is God teaching us? What is God doing for us? The reason we believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is because… The reason why we believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is because… Müller is more than happy to provide all the “becauses”, and we can be sure that most of the time those “becauses” will sound most orthodox and even pious. However, the obvious consequence of this is that the "becauses" become what is necessary, and belief in the actual miracles becomes optional.

By spouting orthodox and pious “becauses”, Müller subtly suggests that belief in the actual miracle, which is pedestrian, is not necessary for the modern sophisticate. He would have us conveniently ignore the fact that the Church has always taught that we are required to actually believe in the miracles because they are dogmas of the faith. Perhaps he is doing this to make it easier for the modern, secular skeptic to believe.  If that is the case, it is a fruitless endeavor, because skeptics can't believe until they stop being skeptics altogether. Perhaps Archbishop Müller is embarrassed by belief in something as irrational as miracles. Or maybe it is because Müller, himself, really doesn't believe in miracles, or at least not in miracles as traditionally understood as suspensions of the laws of nature in the material world due to divine intervention, for the purpose of revealing God's glory. Müller contends that he has defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and transubstantiation in his books. He says he has never denied them. But does he believe them? Does he have faith in those dogmas? Yet again, Müller's words leave more than a little doubt.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Real Presence are both real miracles. The Blessed Virgin Mary really did remain a virgin after childbirth, and that means physically. The bread and wine at Mass cease to be bread and wine at the moment of consecration, and become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, whole and entire as He is in heaven, to include His heavenly corporality, His Resurrected Flesh. These are real miracles because they happened or happen in the material world, wherein God suspends the laws of nature to manifest His glory. I believe that. I'm sure that you, dear reader, believe it too.

And I suspect that Archbishop Müller looks down on us poor garlic eaters for believing something so base and unsophisticated.

However, I will give Archbishop Müller the benefit of the doubt, I suppose. But even if he does believe these dogmas of the Church, what remains sad is that Müller’s obfuscation sacrifices the glory of God for his pride and a feeble attempt to justify his unorthodox remarks.