No, Mother Miriam was not “wrong” in the sense of being forbidden to speak her mind as a Catholic nun and traditionalist voice. She has every right to voice strong theological disagreement, especially on matters of doctrine and evangelization. However, labeling the Pope’s approach as outright “satanic” is a serious escalation that goes beyond standard critique into dramatic rhetoric, and it’s understandable why it provoked backlash from Church leaders. Here’s a balanced breakdown based on facts and theology.

The Context
Mother Miriam reacted to reports of accommodations like a prayer space for Muslim scholars in the Vatican Apostolic Library, alongside Pope Leo XIV’s (or broader papal) interfaith outreach. She stated: “The embracing of Islam is NOT of God!” and questioned allowing “Satan in the Vatican.” This fits her traditionalist style—she often critiques perceived modernism in the post-Vatican II Church.

This echoes longstanding tensions in Catholicism:

Traditional/Exclusive view (held by many pre-Vatican II Catholics and figures like Mother Miriam): Islam is a false religion. It denies the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the Crucifixion. Muhammad is seen as a false prophet by classical Christian theology. Syncretism or “embracing” it as equal dilutes the Gospel (John 14:6 — “I am the way, the truth, and the life”). Some see excessive dialogue as the “smoke of Satan” entering the Church (a phrase from Pope Paul VI).
Official Catholic teaching (Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, Catechism §841): The Church “looks with esteem” on Muslims. They worship the one God, Abrahamic in heritage, and share moral values. The Church promotes dialogue, respect, and peaceful coexistence without endorsing Islamic theology as true or equivalent. Popes (Francis and successors) have hosted dialogues, signed documents like the Abu Dhabi Declaration on Human Fraternity, and allowed practical courtesies (prayer spaces for visitors) for hospitality and peace-building.
Popes are not infallible on policy, diplomacy, or prudential judgments—only on rare, defined dogmatic pronouncements. Catholics can (and historically have) criticized popes sharply on non-infallible matters (e.g., during the Arian crisis, Galileo affair, or modern scandals).

Was Her Language Fair?
Strengths of her position: Core Christian doctrine holds that salvation is through Christ alone. Treating Islam as a “sister faith” in a way that blurs distinctions can confuse the faithful and weaken missionary zeal. History shows real conflicts (Islamic conquests, dhimmi status for Christians, modern persecution of Christians in some Muslim countries). Practical hospitality (a prayer rug for scholars) is one thing; perceived spiritual equivalence is another. Many evangelicals, Orthodox, and traditional Catholics share her alarm at “indifferentism.”
Problems with her framing: Calling it “satanic” implies the Pope is deliberately advancing evil, which is a grave accusation without clear evidence of heresy. Popes have long pursued dialogue for pragmatic reasons—peace in a pluralistic world, protection of Christians in Muslim lands, countering extremism. Nostra Aetate was a Council document, not one man’s whim. Harsh rhetoric risks schism, scandal, and painting all Muslims (over a billion people) as demonic rather than individuals in error who deserve love and conversion efforts. Catholic leaders condemning her see it as divisive and uncharitable.