Good news from the Synod of Bishops! 12 things to know and share [Akin] (Merged Threads)

Why the New Synod Document Relatio Post Disceptationem is Neither Dramatic Nor an Earthquake

Here is the full text of the document:

Let’s go through the controversial homosexuality paragraphs sentence by sentence: “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 50) I can think of several examples of people with same-sex attraction who have offered gifts and special qualities to the Church. The people involved with the Catholic outreach group Courage come to mind, for example, or those who were interviewed for the documentary films “The Third Way” and “Desire of the Everlasting Hills,” where Catholics with same-sex attraction defend the Church’s position on marriage and sexuality. It is important that we work together with people who have this attraction to show the world that our Church’s stance is both merciful and holistic. Their special gifts and qualities come to bear in other areas as well. “Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 50) That is a reasonable wish, and one that needs to be encouraged. People with same-sex attraction cannot find a home in the secular hedonistic culture that is reaching out to them. This is why many of them are asking for the Church to reach out to them. “Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 50) I think the middle part of this statement can be interpreted in two ways, depending on what “their sexual orientation” translates in the original Italian. It may be a loose translation of “their sexual attraction.” If so, then this is similar to what I said about the special gifts and qualities of people with same-sex attraction: they have this cross for a reason, and we need to be able to “kiss the cross” like Jesus is portrayed doing in the Passion. The text does not say that we have to change from thinking same-sex attraction is disordered to thinking it is good. In fact, the very same sentence says we cannot compromise on our doctrine about the family. But it does say that we can value something even in our crosses. “The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 51) This sentence uses some big words. An educative challenge is a challenge of education. Affective growth is emotional growth. So, how can we educate people so that they can grow emotionally, humanly, and according to the Gospel, when they are confronted by homosexuality? The Church needs to develop programs for this, and efforts are underway. An example in the U.S. is in groups like Courage. Therefore, I think this sentence should be noncontroversial. If people are being challenged about our teachings, we need to educate them, and develop programs for it. Simple stuff. “The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 51) Obviously. We cannot change our teachings. Yet somehow that’s what people seem to think this document is doing. “Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 51) If the Synod Fathers were caving to secular pressure, they would not stand so firmly against it. The secularists in the United Nations are denying international aid to countries that don’t adopt a secularist attitude toward same-sex relationships. The Synod Fathers condemn this. It is quite a strong statement for a document discussing the pastoral care of the family. “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” This seems obvious to me, and to my knowledge is not denied by prior documents on the subject. There is a germ of truth in every lie, and this Synod is trying to find that germ of truth in order to reach out on that basis. But look what it says about this subject in an earlier paragraph: “In the diverse cultural realities the possibilities should first be grasped and in the light of them the limits and radicalizations should be rejected.” (Paragraph 30)

In the controversial homosexuality paragraph, these two things are exactly what happens: first, the possibilities are grasped, i.e. that mutual aid and sacrificing for the sake of another is a good thing, and second, the limits and radicalizations are rejected, i.e. we affirm the moral problems connected to homosexual unions.

That’s all the document says regarding homosexuality, and none of it should be controversial.

Cont’d next post.

Cont’d from last post.

Regarding birth control, the synod says: “[W]hat is required is a realistic language that is able to start from listening to people and acknowledging the beauty and truth of an unconditional opening to life as that which human life requires to be lived to its fullest. It is on this base that we can rest an appropriate teaching regarding natural methods, which allow the living in a harmonious and aware way of the communication between spouses, in all its dimensions, along with generative responsibility. In this light, we should go back to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which underlines the need to respect the dignity of the person in the moral evaluation of the methods of birth control.” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 54) This calls for pastors to talk to people about the “require[ment]” of “an unconditional opening to life.” It also suggests implementing catechetical programs to teach the “natural methods” discussed in Humanae Vitae. Then it tells us to go back to Humanae Vitae for more information. I don’t see any stronger way of enforcing Humanae Vitae’s teaching than these proposals. Especially when it calls for pastors to talk to couples about this issue. That’s not even being done right now, most of the time, at least not in my experience.

Because this document affirms the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality and birth control, I don’t think this should cause an earthquake at all.

[SIGN]St. Francis Borja y Aragon Patron Saint of Earthquakes! Please Protect Us![/SIGN]

“Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” (Relatio Post Disceptationem 50)

bolding mine.

How do we “value” something that we know is wrong? Whether we use the term “disordered” or not. And it has nothing to do with whether it is a naturally occurring orientation. Do we “value” cancer or schizophrenia or even more benign disorders such as color-blindness or allergies? We value the people who may suffer from these disorders but not the disorder itself.

I said this on another thread:

Their same-sex attraction is not, in and of itself, sinful, only disordered. But someone with same-sex attraction can use that cross as a witness to living a chaste life in Christ. I have a friend who was active in the lesbian lifestyle, but has since repudiated that lifestyle. But she has not repudiated the fact that she has same-sex attractions. She lives chastely, but does not try to hide her past. She uses her SSA as her ethos against the LGBT agenda.

So a friend of mine messages me this link which makes it sound like this synod on the family is making it look like the church is accepting homosexual lifestyle. I know mainstream media always adds their agenda into all church related articles. Can somone shed light on this?

Jesus praised the dishonest steward for his prudence, even though it involved ill-gotten gains. (Luke 16:1-9) And, after seeing the shrines to various false gods and goddesses in their city, St Paul praised the people of Athens for being very religious, even though their religious devotion was not directed toward its proper object, the one true God. (Acts 17:22) Sounds like the bishops are trying to do something similar with people in homosexuals relationships, praising them for their sacrificial love and other virtues, even though their sexual behavior is not directed toward its proper object, members of the opposite sex.

That seems like a wonderful way to put it, thank you.

We know this is fishy right off the bat because it refers to ‘homosexual persons’ and there is no such thing. We are human persons. Human persons can be inclined to homosexuality, but it is not a person’s essence, it is not a ‘part of who they are’ so to speak. When we welcome persons, we are welcoming them as persons and not as ‘homosexuals’.

People with homosexual inclinations are indeed welcomed. There’s plenty of Catholics who have an inclination toward this sinful behaviour who are sincerely seeking to cultivate virtue. I’ve never once heard of such a person being hounded out of the Church. Those who are unwelcome are the unrepentant sinners. There is no place in the Church for the unrepentant.

Our communities are not capable of accepting valuing homosexual behaviour. If we did suddenly start accepting sinful behaviour, then it would not only be sacrilege and heresy, but it would be a great big kick in the teeth to all those people who have struggled with sexual immorality. All the struggle, effort and tears they have exerted would seem to be needless. All that heartache they have gone through, for nothing. They worked hard to live a virtuous life, that’s a good thing and should be appreciated.

The question of homosexuality does not lead to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension. Homosexuality is nothing new. It hasn’t been popular like it is now for a few centuries, but it has always been around. The Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality is more than sufficient.

I really don’t understand what the point of all this is. It seems like the Church is bowing to the politically correct narrative. This is deadly, because political correctness is a part of the culture of death. Let us hope and pray that they do the right thing.

Here is an explanation that might help:

Why the New Synod Document Relatio Post Disceptationem is Neither Dramatic Nor an Earthquake

Let me know if that helps.

All I know is Gays around the internet have seen the Mainstream reporting on this and they are going nuts, claiming “Victory over the Catholic Church” and it’s so called “backwards” doctrine.

It’s pretty disgusting, honestly.

It’s one thing to say Gays are sinners, but should still be loved as fellow human beings, but it’s entirely another to suggest that the Church will all of a sudden be accepting of Gay Marriage, Gay sexual relations, etc.

IF they do, i will be long gone from the Church. The entire reason I joined is that it’s doctrine is supposed to be the Truth, and the Truth doesn’t change. You either subscribe to and believe in that Truth, or you don’t and therefore aren’t Catholic, in my opinion.

This gay stuff keeps popping up in the news with more frequency, with the Church at the center of it all.

I am not surprised by all the lawyerball playing, word twisting, etc that is now taking place to make believe nothing has REALLY changed (even though it is–if it didn’t, there would be no synod, and no statements from the bishops).

Other posters have stated the obvious (how do you value what is not right, etc). Jesus did not value the pagans’ pagan ness. And yet that is essentially what is being discussed now.

This is dramatic. This is seismic. The casual waving of the wrist to dismiss all the news as media hysteria is obnoxious and insulting. I am far from some kind of hard case, but this does feel like betrayal, confusion, etc and I am not to blame for that. I know I am not alone.

Sadly, I do not expect any clarity or explanation that does not use circular logic or hair splitting arguments to justify what’s taking place.

I predicted this day would come soon but I was thinking twenty years or so. This is huge.

I’m with you 100% on that. I told all my LDS friends, that I would be LDS if the Pope approved gay marriage. But they do not know that its impossible. I’ll let them sit and wait in anxiety to find out what happens. LOL

Which is the best website for Catholic news to read about the synod?

I do not trust the usual press.

Nope. Because if you value their orientation, you have to value it enough to let them get married. :whistle: Ya can’t have one without the otherrrrrr…

Exactly. I have read all kinds of justifications today ranging from “well, Jesus admired the religiousness of the Greeks den though they were pagans” to “well the translation from Italian may be a little off here…”

Sheer nonsense.

I hope you re-think your comments, because it sounds as if the Church leadership ever makes a decision you don’t agree with you’ll leave.

We are called to obey, not pick and chose what we like or don’t like.

There are three courses of action; lead, follow, or get out of the way…if it is unlikely you will become a bishop or cardinal, that leaves you two choices…just think through it before you do something you might regret.

Just breathe. :slight_smile:

After the synod is over, the Church will teach what it always has.

Although some vocal people are yelling about how certain groups are unhappy, the Church is not about natural happiness but everlasting life.

It has not forgotten.


I suppose you know the “truth”. Well, that’s great.
Keep in mind that you are not the only one who thinks they got the “truth”!

A good site

The Vatican has a site as well:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit