INTERVIEW: Cardinal Müller on Charlie Kirk, the “LGBT Jubilee,” and the Rising Threat of Islam

“As a dogmatic theologian I don’t want to be diplomatic. The Catholic Church must proclaim the truth but also contradict lies.”

ROME, September 17, 2025—Recently I sat down in Rome with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for a wide-ranging discussion.

In Part I of this two-part interview, His Eminence reflects on the brutal assassination of Christian conservative and Turning Point USA-founder, Charlie Kirk, calling him a “martyr for Jesus Christ.”

We also discuss the first months of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate as well as a range of pressing issues, including the growing threat of Islam, its relation to today’s radical anti-Christian ideologies, and the recent scandal over the Vatican-sanctioned “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage” led by Fr. James Martin.

Here is Part I of my interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

***

Diane Montagna: Your Eminence, you know the United States well. Would you like to comment on the assassination of Charlie Kirk?

Cardinal Müller: Charlie Kirk was the victim of an atheistic ideology, whose followers erupted in satanic celebration over the heinous murder of an exemplary husband and family man. The devil always takes possession of those who hate life and truth. For, according to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the devil is a “murderer from the beginning” and the “father of lies” (John 8:44). And only those who hear the words of God are of God (cf. John 8:47).

Charlie Kirk was a devout Christian. From a supernatural perspective, he died not as the victim of a political assassination, but as a martyr for Jesus Christ—not in the sense of those who are canonized, but as one who bore witness (from the Greek martys) through his life. He gave his life in following his Lord, as a sacrifice for the truth that man is made in God’s image, male and female, and in opposition to the lies and self-mutilation promoted by so-called “trans-ideology” and “gender-affirming care.” He upheld and lived in defense of the beauty and sanctity of marriage and family, as ordained by God the Creator, and stood up for the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Charlie Kirk’s wife was Catholic, and his close friends have revealed that he attended Mass and was praying the Rosary.

Yes, and he recently praised Holy Mary as a model and “solution” to the ills of our day. By her “yes” to the Incarnation of God, she became the Mother of Jesus, the only Redeemer of humanity, who alone delivers us from lies, sin and death, and all murderous ideologies.

We ask the Lord Jesus and Holy Mary to bring comfort to Charlie’s wife and children.

Let’s turn to Rome. What changes have you perceived since the election of Pope Leo XIV?

There is a more Christ-centered proclamation of the Gospel, greater order, and less emphasis on matters of secondary importance for the Church, such as migration, which is primarily the task of the State.

Certainly, the Church can assist through charitable works, but our first mission is to preach the Gospel to everyone and to evangelize those coming to Europe—not merely to provide material aid, but to give them the truth.

So many Muslims are arriving, and we cannot allow them to impose their religion on our culture. We must confront this with the message of God’s love, since the image they have of God—a dictator whose arbitrary will must blindly be obeyed—is not the image that Jesus has given us. God is our Father, our Creator, who created us according to his image and likeness. We are His children, and by the Holy Spirit we can become the friends of God, friends of Jesus Christ.

This is the message to which we must bear witness, especially in those European countries that have grown weary in their Christian faith and been secularized by the ideologies of nationalism, fascism, communism, and now wokeism, which threatens to destroy both people and their identity.

You would put wokeism on the same level as communism?

Yes, I view it as a continuation of the Marxist understanding of man. According to Marx, we are not persons with an immortal soul capable, through grace, of living in a personal relationship with God, our Creator. Rather, we are seen as dependent on a political party or ideological group—or on the determinations of organizations such as the World Economic Forum—to define the nature of man. An elite few decide what human dignity is, and the masses are expected to obey and conform to everything they dictate. This is completely destructive.

Wokeism is part of an ideological wave that opposes personal identity, the body—male and female—, stable family relationships, distinct cultures and languages, history, and the normal stable relationships that are part of being human.

It is, in essence, a continuation of the old Marxism. While it does not operate as an official political party, it has well-organized pressure groups everywhere—in the European Union, in the United States through the Deep State, in mass media, social media, and universities. These groups are highly oppressive, militant, and aggressive toward anyone who does not conform to their thought.

How do you see the relationship between wokeism and Islam?

Islam is, of course, a religion and has nothing inherently to do with wokeism. However, wokeists are instrumentalizing Islam to undermine Christian identity and Western tradition and culture. I believe, though, that these same wokeists may be the next victims of radical Islamists. They may have calculated that Muslims will eventually adopt woke ideas, but there is no chance of this. On the contrary, Islam rejects the dignity of women, and its moral framework has nothing in common with the aims of wokeism, one of which is to homosexualize society and thought.

In England, for example, wokeism in its initial phase uses Islamism as a tool to weaken Christian culture and tradition. Currently, in tragic cases—such as when a girl is violated by several Muslim men—the girl is more likely to go to jail than the perpetrators.

I hope that we will see meaningful change in England with the next elections.

And the situation in your native Germany?

It is somewhat similar. On average, there are eighteen knife attacks each day, and two or three girls or young women are victims of gang rape. Yet even when a police officer is stabbed, there is often no reaction.

There are also growing challenges in schools, where Muslim children often outnumber Christian children, but few are willing to confront this reality. Even many bishops seem not to fully grasp the seriousness of the situation.

Do you really think the bishops don’t grasp it?

It is easier for them to close their eyes. Many are being swept up by this ideological wave and know that those who openly confess their Christian faith are attacked. They want to be loved by everyone, to be everyone’s darling. Only a few bishops in Germany truly understand what is happening.

We have religious freedom in Germany, and in theory everyone can openly practice their faith, including Islam. But the reality is very different. Muslims are very present in the public sphere, while Christians are often hesitant even to hold a public Eucharistic procession for fear of offending or challenging others.

If the situation continues along this trajectory, how does it end?

It could become like North Africa. Until the seventh century, it was a completely Catholic region, albeit with challenges such as the Donatists. But then Islam arrived, and five hundred years later, the population had become entirely Muslim.

Were this to occur, Christians would become second-class citizens.

Yet few want to acknowledge this. My hometown of Mainz, for example, was seventy percent Catholic fifty years ago; today, due to secularization, migration, and other factors, that figure has fallen to twenty-seven percent. Currently, thirty percent of the country’s population are not ethnically German, and they are predominantly young. In twenty to thirty years, Islam could become the dominant religion.

Do you really believe that Germany could become a Muslim country?

It already is, in many ways. Muslims dominate public life, in part because politicians live in fear of them.

Even though Muslims don’t have control of the government…

The former communist party in eastern Germany is absolutely pro-Islam. Even though their ideology is entirely Marxist and atheistic, they have formed an alliance with Muslims, who profess belief in one God to whom all must submit. It is an absolute contradiction, yet it serves the purpose of de-Christianizing the West.

Do you think we could see civil war at some point?

I believe young Germans are no longer able to defend themselves; in effect, they have already lost the battle. In truth, there was no battle—it was an infiltration. One million people arrived from Syria, many without speaking German. Germany offered them financial support and a developed infrastructure without requiring work. For them, it seems like an earthly paradise—until they exhaust the resources. Once that occurs, conflict could arise, potentially ending in civil war, but amongst themselves, similar to what we have seen in Syria.

And you think this is realistic?

Yes, it is absolutely realistic. There is no effective counter-movement addressing the consequences of depopulation or policies that promote abortion.

Do you think the Bishops are to a great extent responsible for this, due to a failure in the last decades to preach the Gospel and teach the faithful the Catholic Faith?

At the beginning of the depopulation movement, with initiatives such as the Club of Rome, there was resistance. The Pope and the bishops spoke out against it. But the next generation of bishops lost their energy. Look at the German Synodal Way: it is focused on adapting the faith to align with modern ideologies rather than upholding authentic Catholic teaching.

That brings me to my next question. Your Eminence, what is your reaction to the recent “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage” at the Church of the Gesù in Rome and at St. Peter’s Basilica, that led to the viral photo of two homosexual men brazenly holding hands, one with a backpack saying “F*** the Rules”?

They desecrated the temple of God, “making the Father’s house a marketplace” (Jn 2: 17). The LGBT movement is absolutely against the will of God the Creator, who instituted marriage as a holy sacrament in Christ, and it is an absolute scandal that this occurred.

Several years ago, Cardinal Reinhard Marx celebrated a Mass for these groups in Munich, turning what is sacred into a propaganda show. Now, the same is happening at the Church of the Gesù in Rome, with an Italian bishop speaking of the possibility of changing revealed doctrine on marriage and family according to human, carnal desires.

As St. Augustine reminds us in the Confessions X, 27: “He is your best servant who does not want to hear from you what he himself wants to hear, but he wants what he hears from you.”

What is the significance of an entire group which openly rejects the Catholic faith regarding sexual morality passing through the Holy Door?

They abused the Catholic faith and the grace and symbol of the Holy Door—which is Jesus Christ—for the sake of propaganda, while living in open contradiction to the will of the Creator. They denigrated the Church of God by obscene gestures and by their lifestyle. As St. Paul said, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie” (Romans 1:24-25).

St. Paul’s words were not only true in the time the Letter to the Romans was written; homosexuality, pederasty, and pedophilia were prevalent in pre-Christian antiquity. Even today, these are the consequences of denying God, the Creator, who made man male and female. It is astounding that bishops and priests have given space to this anti-testimony of the Catholic faith, in open opposition to God’s will. They ought to consult the doctrine of the Church on matrimony and family, particularly in Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, §47–52.

At least one bishop and several priests and religious sisters took part in the “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage.” A Belgian priest even wore an “intersex-inclusive” pride flag draped down his back like a cape as he walked to the Holy Door.

Do they take part in Eucharistic processions on the Feast of Corpus Christi? That’s not so interesting for them, but they instrumentalize and abuse religious symbols to create propaganda for an anti-Christian ideology.

Was it sacrilege to pass through the Holy Door in that way?

Undoubtedly. Blessing these couples is also a sacrilege and is completely opposed to the Word of God and Catholic doctrine. This ideology is not concerned with helping individuals who struggle with questions about their sexuality to live in conformity with the holy will of the Creator. Nor do its promoters care about eternal life or the salvation of souls. Rather, they promote an anti-Christian ideology that attacks the very concept of marriage and family—father, mother, and children—and stands as a counter-testimony against the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

“But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. […] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:3-5;25-26).

At the pilgrimage, I spoke with one of the main organizers from “Jonathan’s Tent” (Tenda di Gionata). He claimed there are indications in the Bible that homosexuality is morally permissible and said that “we are not supposed to interpret the Bible literally but in the context of a particular historical moment.”

All heretics have interpreted the Bible in this way. Scripture is very clear on these matters, and only the Magisterium of the Church has the authority to provide the authentic and infallible interpretation of the Word of God in accordance with Apostolic Tradition. We cannot compromise with paganism regarding belief in the One God.

Fr. James Martin, who was also one of the main organizers of the “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage,” was received in audience by Pope Leo on September 1 and promptly circulated the official photos on social media. Would this sort of meeting have occurred under Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI?

Both were aware that these photos would be misused to suggest the pope’s alignment with anti-Christian ideologies. Popes have sometimes received communist leaders, but no one ever believed that Pope John Paul II had anything in common with them; he spoke very clearly with them. Benedict XVI once met privately with Hans Küng, but not in a manner that could be instrumentalized, and certainly no one ever thought that Pope Benedict XVI would accept Küng’s theories.

I believe that Pope Leo XIV, who has spoken clearly about the nature of Christian marriage, is very aware of what is happening and cannot easily be instrumentalized by anyone.

The “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage” was organized during the previous pontificate and was already on the Vatican calendar, but some Catholics may ask why Pope Leo met with Fr. James Martin at all, and why the events were not cancelled.

As a dogmatic theologian I don’t want to be diplomatic. The Catholic Church must proclaim the truth but also contradict lies. That is, we must not only positively explain the faith but also actively refute error.

The Council of Nicaea affirmed the truths of the faith but also denounced Arius as a heretic. Proclaiming the truth alone is not enough. St. Paul speaks of the “enemies of the Cross” within the Church. If a pope or bishop speaks the truth, they will attack him. Conversely, if he remains silent, they will exploit his silence to advance their errors.

Many Catholic bishops opposed Fiducia Supplicans because it represented the wrong pastoral path and was based on a deficient and unclear understanding of natural and revealed anthropology.

Between truth and falsehood there can be no compromise. This is not a matter of a conservative or progressive mentality—it is a question of revealed truth and of the purpose of creation as inscribed in human nature.

From the moment he stepped out onto the loggia, Pope Leo has stressed peace and unity. Some would argue that it’s important, especially in the early days of his pontificate, for him to be welcoming to everyone, to be in dialogue with everyone. What would you say to this?

During the last Synod, the Church’s doctrine was labeled “conservative,” and any Catholic seeking to remain faithful to it was categorized as a person stuck in the past, or even as a “Pharisee.”

I believe Pope Leo wishes to overcome this ideological polarization within the Church. However, this cannot be achieved through compromise. We must speak the truth—and the truth inevitably divides people into those who follow the Word of God and those who do not.

You once said that there’s been a “hostile takeover” of the Church…

The “LGBT Jubilee pilgrimage” is just one example of an effort to take over the Church for anti-Christian interests.

If the motives behind these events were truly pastoral, the organizers would have sought to help everyone grow in repentance and union with Jesus Christ.

We recently celebrated the canonizations of Pier Giorgio Frassati and Carlo Acutis. These two young men exemplified the Christian life. They received sanctifying grace in baptism, but they also cooperated with the Holy Spirit to grow in holiness. This is what we need to promote.

Part II of my interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller will be published in the coming days.