Petition demands that the Catholic Church returns to basic ‘truths’

Petition demands that the Catholic Church returns to basic ‘truths’ June 11, 2019

HELL exists for sure, homosexuality remains ‘contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation’ and contraception, under no circumstances, should ever be allowed.

These, and a whole bunch of other issues, are addressed in a ‘back to basics’ document which readers of LifeSiteNews are being exhorted to support via a petition.

The document – “A Declaration of Truths Amid Confusion in Universal Church” – is the creation of a clot of Catholic fossils who are deeply unhappy with the direction in which the Church is travelling with Pope Francis at the helm.

Image via YouTube

It has been issued by Cardinal Raymond Burke, above, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, together with several other bishops to remedy: the “almost universal doctrinal confusion and disorientation” endangering the spiritual health and eternal salvation of souls in the Church today.

Some of the 40 “truths” elucidated in the declaration implicitly refer statements made by the “heretical” Pope Francis, while others relate to points of confusion that have arisen or intensified during the current pontificate.

The eight-page document released in several languages on Pentecost Monday, June 10, upholds the Church’s perennial teaching on the Eucharist, marriage and priestly celibacy.

Also included among the “truths” of the faith is that “hell exists” and that human souls who are “condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin” suffer there eternally; that the “only religion positively willed by God” is that born in faith in Jesus Christ; and that “homosexual acts” and gender reassignment surgery are “grave sins” and a “rebellion” against divine and natural law.

In an explanatory note, replete with references to St Paul, the Church Fathers and the documents of Vatican II, the cardinals and bishops write that the Church is experiencing one of the “greatest spiritual epidemics” in her history, and:

A widespread lethargy in the exercise of the Magisterium on different levels of the Church’s hierarchy in our days. Our time is characterized by an acute spiritual hunger of the Catholic faithful all over the world for a reaffirmation of those truths that are obfuscated, undermined, and denied by some of the most dangerous errors of our time.

The prelates argue that the faithful feel “abandoned,” finding themselves in a “kind of existential periphery” and that such a situation “urgently demands a concrete remedy.”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Image via YouTube.

Exhorting Catholic bishops and laity to “fight the good fight of the faith”, the signatories say they believe “private and public acts of a declaration of these truths” could be the beginning of “a movement” to confess and defend the truth – and to make reparation for “hidden and open sins of apostasy” committed by clergy and laity alike.

The “declaration of truths” is composed of four parts: Fundamentals of Faith, The Creed, The Law of God and The Sacraments.

The first part addresses attacks against the Church’s infallibility and the problem of doctrinal relativism, ie belief that the meaning of Catholic doctrine changes or evolves, depending on the historic age or circumstances.

The second part states that Muslims and other non-Christians do not adore God in the same way as Christians, as Christian adoration is a supernatural act of faith.  It further states the goal of “true ecumenism” is that :

Non-Catholics should enter that unity which the Catholic Church already indestructibly possesses.

Part II on the Creed also affirms explicitly that:

Hell exists and those who are condemned to hell for any unrepented mortal sin are eternally punished there by Divine justice.

It therefore rejects the theory of “annihilism” which claims that the damned will cease to exist after the final judgement rather than suffering everlasting torment in hell.

In a series of points, the signatories then reiterate the Church’s teaching that abortion is “forbidden by natural and divine law”; that “procedures which cause conception to happen outside of the womb are morally unacceptable” and that “euthanasia” is a “grave violation of the law of God,” since it is:

The deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.

Citing Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, it reiterates the Church prohibition against contraception, stating that “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation – whether as an end or as a means” is prohibited.

Regarding homosexuality, the signatories reaffirm with Scripture and tradition that:

Two persons of the same sex sin gravely when they seek venereal pleasure from each other (see Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Rom 1:24-28; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10; Jude 7) and that homosexual acts:

Under no circumstances can be approved.

It adds that it is “contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation” to say that:

As God the Creator has given to some humans a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the opposite sex, so also He has given to others a natural disposition to feel sexual desire for persons of the same sex, and that God intends that the latter disposition be acted on in some circumstances.

Regarding same-sex marriage, the cardinals and bishops state that no “human law” nor “any human power whatsoever,” can:

Give to two persons of the same sex the right to marry one another or declare two such persons to be married, since this is contrary to natural and Divine law.

Concerning gender theory, the declaration reaffirms that:

The male and female sexes, man and woman, are biological realities created by the wise will of God.

The declaration concludes by reaffirming that priestly celibacy:

Belongs to immemorial and apostolic tradition according to the constant witness of the Fathers of the Church and of the Roman Pontiffs

Oddly missing from the “back to basics” document is a demand that Catholic clergy should be allowed to engage with impunity in their time honoured tradition of diddling young children.

"... or used as a tackling dummy. :-("

Football coach who arranged a mass ..."
"How about The Satanic Temple brings their Baphomet statue to be placed at the 50 ..."

Football coach who arranged a mass ..."
"They really don't understand the problem with coercion. "Hey, all of those guys did it ..."

Football coach who arranged a mass ..."
"It seems strange that a family friend, a christian, did not know that the family ..."

Wrongly buried committed atheist is to ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Wisdom, Justice, Love

    Get the plank out your own eye before discussing the mote in someone else’s.

    I wonder if these guys (there could be a female in the mix) after heard that saying…

    How does jesus feel about hypocrites?

  • “The document – “A Declaration of Truths Amid Confusion in Universal Church” – is the creation of clot of Catholic fossils who are deeply unhappy with the direction in which the Church is travelling with Pope Francis at the helm.”

    Note to author: it should be “…is the creation of a clot of Catholic fossils…”. On the other hand, I think the word clod is more appropriate.

  • Michael Neville

    So what do Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider think about supporting and protecting child raping clergy? Should they be reported to the appropriate civil authorities? Or should they just say three Our Fathers, a couple of Hail Marys, and get shipped to another parish? I think we all know the answer to that one.

  • larry parker

    Back to the basics, crusades and inquisitions for everyone.

  • Barry Duke

    Missing “a” inserted. I like clod but prefer clot.

  • Robert McLean

    Must say it’s rather good to see Frank at the Vatican and his peculiarly attired cabal of clerics moving into phase two of their effective “Neuter the Church Program”. This program, while designed to appeal to the more conservative, deluded minions is also effectively sending supporters with functioning intellect into the far reaches, out of harms way. By alienating about two thirds of their potential victims, numbers will continue to plummet, influence will further evaporate and the church, for what it’s worth, will fall away into the odious waste pile that is total irrelevance, in silly hats.

  • persephone

    Those poor abandoned priests having to stand by the side of the road, begging for money and attention, in rags and tatters. It’s terrible how they suffer.

  • TommYYman

    Why would atheists give a fig about internal theology struggles inside the Catholic church?

  • TommYYman

    Actually, the church parishes that have gone back to the “fossil” days of pre-Vatican II by saying the Latin Mass, meaning, more conservative than even Burke, are thriving, and the seminary’s that produce TLM priests such as FSSP are full. Its the modernist, Vatican II wing of the Church that is dying.

  • WallofSleep
  • TommYYman
  • WallofSleep

    Projection.

  • TommYYman

    Your avatar?

  • WallofSleep
  • Zetopan

    Any possible benefit to humanity should be everyone’s concern. But of course you are not interested in that topic.

  • TommYYman

    Benefit is in the eye of the beholder.

  • gimpi1

    Well, the fact that they control the majority of hospitals in the U.S. and can use hospital policies to keep living wills from being honored, refuse to terminate doomed pregnancies — thus killing the mother, prevent people from choosing to have sterilization surgery, prevent birth control prescriptions being filled, deny parients the best treatment for tubal pregnancy, and generally mess up health care seems like a reason for everyone to be concerned.

    In large cities people generally have choices. Small towns and rural areas often don’t. If your rural regional hospital is controlled by the Catholic Church, and you don’t want to be kept alive on machines or you’re suffering from an incomplete miscarriage, you will care a great deal.

  • TommYYman

    Yes it was the evil Church that invented hospitals,orphanages and universities. Maybe atheists should start their own hospitals in those rural areas.

  • gimpi1

    Or perhaps Catholic hospitals should keep up with modern medical practice. You know, the way university and public hospitals are required to. Or, we could tax religious organizations and use those funds to create a good public hospital system for rural areas. Either is good…

  • TommYYman

    Well if you want to cut your nose to spite your face by forcing Catholic hospitals to close give it a go.

  • gimpi1

    They’re not opening hospitals, they’re buying them. They generally run them as for-profit businesses. If they choose not to follow the best medical practices, they should make other investments.

    No one is forcing them to close. They are not abiding by the best medical practices, which change as medical knowledge improves. We’ve learned a few things in the last few centuries. Are you saying they’re too incompetent to keep up? That they’d rather shut down than learn something? Not a good testimony…

    The fact that they choose their dogma over the wishes and well being of their patients is pretty awful. The fact that you mindlessly defend that is worse.

  • WallofSleep

    Says a supporter of an international crime syndicate of murderers and kiddie fiddlers.

  • larry parker

    Hospitals, orphanages and universities predate christianity.

  • Amused To Death
  • TommYYman

    Any non-profit hospital should run with a mindset to be in the black otherwise staying open will be more difficult. If “best medical practices” involve things the Church finds morally objectionable, they have every right to not do them. And if you think they will subject to be forced to do so, think again. Again, its a free country. You dont like Catholic hospitals, dont go there. Raise your own money and buy/build your own. My wife is a 20+ year RN. The best hospitals she worked for in terms of care of patients and treatment of employees were Catholic. The secular, truly “for-profit”, the worst.

  • TommYYman

    Do you support your country – (The USA I presume?)

  • Broga

    Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Wonderful name and seems onomatopoeic appropriate for that berk.

  • Broga

    Steady. Musn’t deprive them of their entertainment. I think that is a prime source of fun and, until recently, with a steady stream of victims and little chance of facing justice.

  • Kit Hadley-Day

    i do wonder about grown adults who like to play pretend fun times games that involve the one handed consideration of people being tortured for ever.

  • Anri

    Why bother with a petition?
    If god wants these guys to succeed, how can they fail?
    If god wants them to fail, how can they succeed?

  • Anri

    If “best medical practices” involve things the Church finds morally objectionable, they have every right to not do them. And if you think they will subject to be forced to do so, think again. Again, its a free country.

    So – and I want to make certain I am understanding your point here – Jim Crow laws are fine by you, so long as the people in charge find treating whites and blacks equally to be morally objectionable?

    You dont like Catholic hospitals, dont go there. Raise your own money and buy/build your own.

    I think you’re probably smart enough to understand why selecting a hospital might be just a smidgen different from picking a coffee shop. If you’re not, let me know and I’ll explain it to you.

  • TommYYman

    Huh? Discrimination laws are just a tad thing different that what procedures a hospital chooses to offer or not offer.

    Again, a hospital is a private organization. It can choose what services it wants to offer or not offer. Don’t have what you want, go to where the service can be offered.

    ” just a smidgen different from picking a coffee shop”…yes please tell that to certain patrons of wedding cake shops

  • Broga

    Anything the Church starts has a propaganda objective which comes first. We have the claptrap from Billy Graham’s sprog where “the truth” i.e. his view of it is inserted at every opportunity.

    The Church has been racketeering for centuries and selling indulgences was a prime example. The tradition continues with a cynicism, shamelessness and predatory greed that is criminal.

  • TommYYman

    Well bless your little heart.

  • Anri

    Discrimination laws are just a tad thing different that what procedures a hospital chooses to offer or not offer.

    Refusing to treat people based on moral objections seems pretty clear-cut to me. If your moral beliefs hold that people of a given racial group shouldn’t get medical treatment, should you be forced to provide it for them? It’s a free country, right?

    Again, a hospital is a private organization. It can choose what services
    it wants to offer or not offer. Don’t have what you want, go to where
    the service can be offered.

    Please tell me about your hospital of choice in the next place you will have an unexpected medical emergency. Be specific.

    Or, to put it another way, would you support a Jehovah’s Witness ER that refused to transfuse blood to patients? When exactly would you as a patient be expected to check on this?

    ” just a smidgen different from picking a coffee shop”…yes please tell that to certain patrons of wedding cake shops

    I would argue that serving the public means serving the public, not bits of the public. Again, Jim Crow laws were there for “we don’t serve your kind” purposes. That the specific selected “kind” has changed has not altered the content of those types of laws.

  • TommYYman

    >>Refusing to treat people based on moral objections seems pretty clear-cut to me. If your moral beliefs hold that people of a given racial group shouldn’t get medical treatment, should you be forced to provide it for them? It’s a free country, right?

    To refuse a particular service to certain races is racial discrimination and thus illegal based on current law. To refuse to do a service for anyone, regardless of race, is not illegal.

    >>Or, to put it another way, would you support a Jehovah’s Witness ER that refused to transfuse blood to patients? When exactly would you as a patient be expected to check on this?

    That would be their right and they would be out of business well befoe I would need a transusion.

    >> Again, Jim Crow laws were there for “we don’t serve your kind” purposes. That the specific selected “kind” has changed has not altered the content of those types of laws.

    Yes, so why were you applying it to me since my support of Catholic hospitals refusal to do services has nothing to do with race?

  • Milo C

    I hope “infallible” Francis pushes back against the crusaders and asserts his supposed authority. He’s certainly getting bullied by committee lately; hardly the image of the house of god.

  • At least the Titanic knew when it had hit an iceberg, this church will obviously be the last to discover, the ship of faith, fatally flawed by design is sinking. It remains deaf, dumb and blind to its own self deception. They have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

  • Broga

    Superstition rules OK. Is that what you contend. Where do you find your guidance, your biblical truth. Which bible, which language and how come “bible truth” has so many contradictions that it reveals God as inordinately careless in stating his truth thus and causing confusion. Even the different bits of the RC Church cannot agreed what your Imaginary Fairy in the Sky wants them to do and how to behave.

    Do you seriously believe the religious junk that priests unload on the gullible and ignorant?

  • Broga

    Now that is truth and does not need Latin to express it.

  • WallofSleep

    You really aren’t very bright, are you? Your pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy is transparent, and denied.

  • Broga

    The performances are entertaining and lighten the serious work of the day.

  • TommYYman

    Not sure what your talking about. Not aware of any such.

  • TommYYman

    Yes it was so poor you werent able to rebut it.

  • WallofSleep

    No, I simply didn’t give you the chance to make it. You need some remedial courses in reading comprehension there kiddo.

  • TommYYman

    To make what? You too afraid to say you support your country? Confident your not.

  • WallofSleep

    Your attempt at deflection has failed. Accept it, kid.

  • TommYYman

    Go ahead, run away…

  • TommYYman

    >>Where do you find your guidance, your biblical truth
    The Magesterium

    >>Which bible
    The one defined by the Church.

    >>has so many contradictions that it reveals God as inordinately careless
    Only to those who dont interpret it correctly. The teaching authority has the “correct” interpretation so its the only one to be concerned about. All other interpret incorrectly leading to said confusion.

    >>Even the different bits of the RC Church cannot agree

    There are issues that the Church has not spoken out on infallibly, which does lead to discussion. Like for instance the idea of limbo. But there are no major doctrinal issues other than the heretics within the Church

  • Broga

    You embarrass yourself by so casually declaring your ignorance. You could look up “biblical contradictions” on Google. Or read the excellent, and written with clarity, “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. That will save you the trouble of looking elsewhere as research and analysis seem alien to you.

    Are you really as ignorant as you seem or, like many Christians, prefer not to know what they fear will overwhelm their fragile faith and very tenuous grip on the truth.

  • TommYYman

    And richard dawkins is infallible or just another guy with an opinion?

  • Broga

    You are deep in your own fantasies. Wake up. Try to develop some courage and honesty or even objectivity.

  • Broga

    That is typical of you and your type. You cannot debate an issue with facts and so resort to a sneer. You do yourself no favours by defending Roman Catholic institutions when the Church is infested with paedophile priests. Some, at last and long overdue, in the slammer.

  • Broga

    Is that a response or a desperate attempt, yet again, to avoid one and so expose tacitly your ignorance? I don’t think the Pope can be satisfied with your blundering and ignorant attempts to hide. He might want you to do yourself a favour and run for cover as every comment corrodes your faith.

  • TommYYman

    Yep and so it goes….make sure you start out with the obligatory “skyfairy”, then just pile on the insults…then run away or block.

  • TommYYman

    Really? the first thing your side does is insult our faith and beliefs.Usually with the word “skyfairy” embedded somewhere. You present no facts, only your hatred. Bless you anyway.

  • TommYYman
  • Broga

    He is an acclaimed academic and author of best selling books. He ceased debating with RC priests, much as they would like him to, because the debates let the priests appear to have something worth saying. Therefore they gain from the debates as they milk them to imply that there is a serious debate. In a TV programme he read from furious letters from Christian bigots who detailed what they wanted to happen to him in hell. This rather dispelled, hilariously, the “gentle Jesus, turn the other cheek” claims of Christians.

    I invite anyone reading these posts to take a look at your pathetic efforts to appear have any answers. That will demonstrate why Dawkins decided that discussions with priests was a waste of time. Your appearance here is marginally worthwhile as every comment you make demonstrates that you are ignorant, bigoted and have a closed mind and very definitely a lack of any semblance of intellectual courage. Thus your mind, numbed by Catholic indoctrination, must remain closed. Sad.

    Must stop for now. Off to the pub for a drink and a game of darts. Usual problem, I suppose, of my dog being fed too many crisps.

  • TommYYman

    So yes, just another guy with an opinion. I should believe he is correct why?

    Anyhoo…

    You are the man who proclaims:

    >>>”You cannot debate an issue with facts and so resort to a sneer.”

    Then proceeds says with his own “sneers:”

    >>>”you are ignorant, bigoted and have a closed mind and very definitely a lack of any semblance of intellectual courage”
    >>>Are you really as ignorant as you seem
    >>>You embarrass yourself
    >>blah blah blah

    So what is a more appropriate response? “Pot meet kettle” or “hypocrite”?

    Have fun at darts. Dont poke your eyes out!

  • Freethinker

    It is statements like these that make me sincerely wish that Hell was real for bigoted, primitive scumbags like Burke and Schneider to spend eternity in.
    The day that the Catholic Church will finally be declared an international crime syndicate and dismantles will not come soon enough

  • WallofSleep

    No need to. Your kind are only interested in young children, not grown adults like myself.

    https://media.giphy.com/media/Cls2VLhEkWACc/giphy.gif

  • Brian Shanahan

    Nothing. Fictional characters don’t feel.

  • Wisdom, Justice, Love

    The character doesn’t have to be real to contemplate their position?

    How does Luke Skywalker feel about his mother?

    I agree there is no proof of jesus. But these guys claim to believe in him and can’t wait to follow his rule. Odd they don’t appear to be making an effort to do anything the jesus character would.

    If an alien came to this planet, they’d drive that jesus must have hated LGBTQ people, based on his “fans”.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    I’m an atheist and I certainly don’t.

    Why should Christians give a fig about anything atheists have to say in a blog for atheists?

  • Anri

    To refuse a particular service to certain races is racial
    discrimination and thus illegal based on current law. To refuse to do a service for anyone, regardless of race, is not illegal.

    But they are equivalent morally, right? One’s just out of current legal fashion?
    The fact that one moral-based objection is supported and the other is rejected is entirely inequitable, wouldn’t you say?
    To put it another way, why should one refusal of service based on moral objection get a legal pass and the other not?

    That would be their right and they would be out of business well befoe I would need a transusion.

    Depending on when you ended up there, I suppose. Can you explain to me why they’d be out of business?

    Yes, so why were you applying it to me since my support of Catholic hospitals refusal to do services has nothing to do with race?

    Because “sluts” are a kind.
    And please don’t tell me this sort of rhetoric isn’t used in the refusal of abortion services because I’ve read it.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “I invite anyone reading these posts to take a look at your pathetic efforts to appear have any answers. That will demonstrate why Dawkins decided that discussions with priests was a waste of time. “

    Reason is the enemy of theists.

    I’m embarrassed for TommYYman and now understand why he is reluctant to display his comment history. If the comments above are even remotely representative of his idea of a dialog, then it’s no wonder he keeps it hidden.

    Enjoy your pint, I think I’ll join you.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Cue whataboutism while shifting goalposts for $300, Alex.

  • TommYYman

    Actually it was reason that led me to believe. It was never a special “shazzam” moment. All in thinking about.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “Actually it was reason that led me to believe. It was never a special “shazzam” moment. All in thinking about.”

    Excellent.

    You examined all the evidence; Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, Realism and Non-realism, Religious Pluralism, Religious Relativism, Religious Exclusivism, Concepts of God/Ultimate Reality, the Challenge of Science, the Coherence of Theism, Problems of Evil and Suffering, Evidential Problems, Theodicy, the Hiddenness of God and Miracles, and you came to the rational conclusion that the Christian God as written about in the immutable KJV of the Bible was the only rational answer to what’s happening around you.

    Well done. I’m convinced.

  • TommYYman

    Yep. I followed the footsteps of other great minds and came to the same conclusion. (But not the KJV).

    On edit….didnt mean to imply that I have a “great mind” I read up, thought for myself like a good freethinker, and came to the same conclusion of people much smarter than me.

  • Broga

    You are sick. You need help.

  • Broga

    I’m beginning to suspect that you are an agent provocateur placed here by the National Secular Society to behave with such silliness that you undermine everything that you claim to support.

    Admit it! Your cover is blown. No one, not even a Roman Catholic, could be as bonkers as you. If I might offer a bit of advice, and I hesitate as your attempt at destroying Roman Catholicism is well done and funny, you go just a tad too far. Put that right and you will be a one man demolition machine of Roman Catholicism. Congratulations. You have set new standards.

  • Broga

    “I didn’t mean to imply that I have a “great mind”

    I assure you there was no danger of you being thought to have that. Have you had an IQ test recently?

  • TommYYman

    Lol! What I have just explained is standard orthodox Catholic teaching. You’d rather insult than debate? Well then No Soup For You! (aka blockin ya!)

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    …and yet you ended up here.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “TommYYman:…thought for myself like a good freethinker,…”

    Broga, I’m thinking TommYYman has a different interpretation of freethinker than the rest of us.

  • TommYYman

    Why not? Talking in an echo chamber is not much fun. BTW have you taken Broga to task for keeping his comments hidden?

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “Talking in an echo chamber is not much fun.”

    Talking and singing in an echo chamber is enormous fun. That being said, I would welcome some intelligent give-and-take from those who actually have something to say. Playing d​evil’s advocate and being contrary just for s​hits and giggles might amuse you but I am getting close to just blocking you and moving on with my life.

    “BTW have you taken Broga to task for keeping his comments hidden?”

    Because I have been posting alongside Broga for some amount of time and have observed enough comments over different blogs to ascertain a point of reference regarding likes, dislikes, interests, etc. The only thing I have learned about you is that much like a 12 year old with a stick and an ant hill, you just like to stir things up. Perhaps I am wrong in that assessment but without viewing other sites that have influenced you and your comments therein, I have no choice but to have a very linear view of whatever you are trying to say and/or accomplish here. So far, it’s been less than illuminating.

  • TommYYman

    My opinions are sincerely held; I don’t say contrary things just for shits and giggles. I like a good debate, but alas its hard to find once since everyone almost immediately gets hostile if you don’t agree with them, that goes for both ends of the spectrum.

  • Sophotroph

    Your admission of failure is accepted, but your apology needs work.

  • These people have come several centuries too late.