THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

Synods are important events in the life of the Church, but nearly four weeks of discussing any subject can become wearying. It’s good to be home, and I’m grateful to all those who offered their prayers and support for the meeting’s success. As in the past, the bishops’ vote on the final document took place paragraph by paragraph, and like most of the delegates, I voted “yes” on most of the paragraphs.

The synod did have its problems: most notably an ambiguity of rules and process, and a lack of needed translations. But the final document, while not without its own flaws, is an improvement over the original Instrumentum Laboris text. [I am surprised the archbishop does not comment on the proviso that the IL must be considered, in effect, part of the final document. Everything is so rush-rush about synodal procedures - and the resulting document way too verbose - that it was probably intended to make the participants feel so pressured they do not even realize much of what their vote implies. As they would if they had a reasonable time to review the propositions line by line - and do so from an official translation to a langugage that the individual delegate is at home with - not with only the Italian text to go by.]

Delegates also elected some good men to the synod’s permanent council. That has hopeful implications for the future.

Before we move on to more urgent matters as a local Church, though, I want to mention a few things as a matter of simple honesty. On October 27, in an interview with Frank Rocca of the Wall Street Journal, I said the following, and I want to repeat it here.

On the issue of sexual abuse of minors:

---

There was some good discussion [by the synod fathers] of the issue, though not enough, and the final synod document is frankly inadequate and disappointing on the abuse matter. Church leaders outside the United States and a few other countries dealing with the problem clearly don’t understand its scope and gravity. There’s very little sense of heartfelt apology in the text. And clericalism, for example, is part of the abuse problem, but it’s by no means the central issue for many laypeople, especially parents.

---

In regard to Church teaching on sexuality:

---

The key to all of the sexuality debates is anthropological. One of the subtle and concerning problems in the synod text at various stages [was] its references to a need for ‘deepening’ or ‘developing’ our understanding of anthropological issues. Obviously we can, and should, always bring more prayer and reflection to complicated human issues.

But the Church already has a clear, rich, and articulate Christian anthropology. It’s unhelpful to create doubt or ambiguity around issues of human identity, purpose, and sexuality, unless one is setting the stage to change what the Church believes and teaches about all three, starting with sexuality.

---

In assessing the 2018 synod experience overall:

---

Many of the bishops were frustrated by the lack of advance translations for important issues they were expected to vote on. As one of the synod fathers argued, it’s actually immoral to vote ‘yes’ on significant issues if you can’t even read and reflect on what the text says. A lot of delegates were also surprised and unhappy with the introduction of synodality as a topic in a gathering themed to young people. It isn’t a natural fit. Synodality has serious implications. It deserves serious theological reflection and discussion among the bishops. That didn’t happen, which doesn’t seem consistent with a coming-together of Pope and bishops in a spirit of collegiality.

---

In the months ahead, I hope all of us in the American Catholic community will pray especially for the Holy Father, and also for the mission of the Church as she navigates the future.

Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., is the archbishop of Philadelphia and a former member of the Synod of Bishops’ permanent council. His term ended at the conclusion of the 2018 synod. What does it say of the synod delegates in general that they did not re-elect Chaput to the Council?

Bergoliac Spadaro:
It was really a synod on synodalization

Well, now we have it from Bergoglio mouthpiece/alter ego #1 that the just concluded synodal assembly was really on 'synodalization' - and '2+2=5' Spadaro probably thinks everyone is just too stupid to realize Bergoglio and company have once again taken us all for a ride. We've all been had!


Poor Mons. Chaput and all the other synodal fathers who dutifully, or is it subserviently, and apparently mindlessly, voted YES for virtually the whole synod document- all thinking they had just spent three weeks discussing Catholic young people and how 'the Church' ought to deal with them! To be told now that it was really all about synodalization all along - never mind they hardly discussed it.

But Spadaro is telling us that's what it was about - and has a prefabricated article for his magazine to tell us all about it. From the horse's mouth himself, if not the horse. Two of the first reactions to his tweet immediately called him out.

I already dread what the pope will expatiate on in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation. I dread every word that could come from him, of course, but obviously, the next one could easily outdo Amoris laetitia as the 'mother of messes'.

Thanks to Marco Tosatti, who has compiled quite a number of the reaction tweets to Spadaro's synodality tweet, which I will post here when I've copied and sorted them out. Meanwhile, here is Aldo Maria Valli's satirical take on the 'pastoral lexicon' of cliches overused and abused by the pope and his petty satraps to the point of meaninglessness, and how that blather can drive you to murder...

After so much walking together...
Translated from

October 29, 2018

– Good morning!
– Good morning to you! (Pant! Pant!)
– Excuse me, but why do you seem so tired? You’re out of breath…
– Eh! I just took part in the synod. (Pant! Pant!)
– But you’re a young man.
– Precisely! – As a young man, I took part in the synod, and I am exhausted. (Pant! Pant!)
– But why?
– What do you mean, why? Have you not read?
– What?
– That the church is going out, out to the peripheries, to accompany the weak, and to walk together… (Pant! Pant!)
– And therefore?
– Therefore, I’m all done! Just try it…
– Try to do what?
- To go to the peripheries, walk together, get out, accompany others! That’s tiring! (Pant! Pant!)
- How strange!
- What is?
- Well, I thought that for you young people, the synodal asembly would be a feast…
- Aaargh! Don’t talk to me about feasting.
- Why not?
- Those devils!
- What devils? Who are you talking about?
- Those bishops…
- What about them?
- At the end, not content with walking together, going out to the peripheries, they actually broke out into feasting! (Pant! Pant!)
- Feasting?
- Yes, they even statred dancingin the synod hall...
- How exactly?
- A cardinal sat at the piano and played, and they danced. Like they were in a discotheque. I was already debilitated by then, but that final feast just killed me. (Pant! Pant!)
– Well, does it not just mean that the bishops were feeling good, even at their age?
- Fine, but what do we young people have to do with it? I’m saying: If they have such a desire to walk together, go out to the peripheries, accompany others, fine, let them do it. And if, after all that, they still have energy left to dance, then I am happy for them. But I wish they would just leave us in peace. (Pant! Pant!)
– Uhm…
– What now?
– I’m not sure. I find you a strange young man.
– In what way?
- Well, young people usually love to move about, walk, run, dance. And here you are complaining…
- Of course, I like to walk and to dance, but there’s a limit to everyhting. For three weeks, we did nothing in the synod hall but talk of ‘a church’ that goes out, that walks together, that accompanies others, preferably in the peripheries. (Pant! Pant!)
- Bear up, you can recover.
- I hope…
– What do you mean ‘you hope’?
- Because now I have to go back to my diocese… (Pant! Pant!) And I’m afraid that my bishop will go on about this business of walking together, setting forth, going to the peripheries, accompanying… (Pant! Pant!)
- Come on, don’t be so down!
- Perhaps you don’t understand…
- What don’t I understand?
- What it means to be a Catholic today.
- Meaning what?
_ That it’s all about going out, walking together, accompanying, going to the peripheries. One would need to be built like an ox… (Pant! Pant!)
- But you’re a young man! Come now!
- I was a young man, But after this synod, all of a sudden, I feel old. (Pant! Pant!)
- Come on, did you not hear what the pope said?
- Which one?
- He said that you young people must launch yourself forward into an unknown future!
- Aaaarghhh!
- What’s wrong now?
- Please, no! Now we have to ‘launch ourselves’? No, no. I can’t do it…(Pant! Pant!)
– I'm sorry, I didn’t mean to upset you… But on the other hand, the pope also asked you young people to recognize in yourselves a strong impulse to set off on this journey…
- Aaaarghhh! I beg of you, stop it! Are you doing this on purpose?
- I’m really sorry. I was trying to comfort you..
- Well then, stop talking to me about walking etc. …(Pant! Pant!) Just hearing the word robs me of breath!
- All right, I understand. Maybe you might wish to take a spiritual retreat at this time.
- Perhaps.
- Here, I see an advertisement especially for “Young people in support of a church that goes out”…
- Grrrrrrr.
- Now you’re grumbling….
- Yes, because you are a provocateur…
- I apologize once more. What about this? A course of pastoral aggiornamento. It is called – and I apologize –
“Accompaniment. The Church walking together with and for young people”.
- Aaaarghhh!
- I’ll stop.What are you doing now?
- [Stonk! Stonk!]
– Wait, why are you beating me up?
- [Stonk! Stonk!] And you ask why?
- Yes, please stop! You are a Catholic. Pardon, mercy, tenderness…???
- Look, I was Catholic… Now, I am just tired, very tired… [Stonk! Stonk!]
- Yet you’re beating me up…
- With whatever strength still left to me.
- Stop. See here, another good course of ‘high formation in the pastoral vocations’…
- And the title?
- Ummm.
- Give me the title.
- ‘From listening to accompaniment’…
- Aaaarghhh! [Bang! Bang!]
- HELP!!! I NEED HELP! These are no longer young Catholics as they used to be…
- Yes, finally, you get it. [Bang! Bang!]

It is no joke, however, that with those Bergoglio cliches repeated ad nauseam in the final synod document, practically every bishop coming out of that synod sounds like a parrot soitting out those meaningless 'pastoral' words ad nauseam. Just the echo chamber effect of it is stultifying. Will bishops and priests care at all about doctrine and discipline, about the true faith and the Church's basic mission to save souls, after all this Bergoglian brainwashing on 'pastoral' techniques straight out of a cheap and vulgar 'I'm OK, you're OK' pop psychology playbook?Never under-estimate the erosive and corrosive power of repetition!!! Bergoglio and company have been imposing his worldview on gullible bishops, priests and laity by this simple tactic.

Fr De Souza, who lately has been inexplicably making noises sounding like he's reverting to his earlier Bergogliac enthusiasm - or at least, bending over to give Bergoglio the benefit of the doubt even when unmerited - is harsh, and rightly so, about the way the final synod document was drafted and passed.

The synod's final document:
A rush to judgment
The process used to draft and approve the final document renders implausible
any claim that it is the fruit of mature deliberation by the synod members.
by Father Raymond J. de Souza, SJ

October 27, 2018

VATICAN CITY — “I don’t know if this document will do anything,” Pope Francis said in his brief, extemporaneous address to conclude the Synod on Youth. “We approved the document. The Holy Spirit gives us the document so that it can work in our hearts.”

The final document of the synod may do something indeed, as the new regulations promulgated just before this synod by Pope Francis make it possible that he may designate it as an act of the magisterium of the Church. As a novelty, it remains to be seen what exactly that would mean.

What decision the Holy Father will take in that regard has not yet been decided, as clarified at the final press briefing by Dr. Paolo Ruffini, head of Vatican communications. It will be some time until that decision is made.

The final document also included a reference to the Instrumentum laboris— the heavily criticized working document prepared months before the synod — saying that it should be read in “complementarity” with the final document. That adds a further question about status.

The “working document” was not prepared by the synod, nor was it voted upon by them. How then could it have any status at all, let alone that of being “complementary” to a potentially magisterial document?

All of the paragraphs in the final document passed the necessary two-thirds threshold easily.

The paragraph regarding the status of the Instrumentum laboris had 43 negative votes out of 249, the highest number for any paragraph save for the paragraph on homosexuality. That paragraph could be read in an orthodox fashion, citing previous Church teaching, but was sufficiently ambiguous to garner 65 negative votes out of 248.

So it is clear that the final document received sufficient votes to pass, with most paragraphs achieving near-unanimity. What is not as clear is whether the synodal process allows sufficient time and space for the discernment necessary for a document that might be recognized as magisterial.

The final document is some 60 single-spaced pages, more than 30,000 words in length, divided into three parts, 12 chapters and 167 paragraphs. The synod members first saw a draft on Tuesday.

According to Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Bombay, one of the most senior collaborators of Pope Francis as a member of the Council of Cardinals (C9), and also a member of the drafting committee for the final document, significant sections of the document introduced subjects and language not addressed in the synod itself.

“They’re very heavily stressed, discernment and synodality, which really were not very much prominent in the discussions,” saidCardinal Gracias. “There was some resistance when it was publicized because this document has so much on synodality when we really haven’t discussed it.”

The synod then had Wednesday to speak about the draft documents, proposing changes. On Thursday, the drafting committee addressed the changes, and the designated secretaries polished the text on Friday.

On Saturday morning, the text was read to the entire assembly in Italian, with simultaneous translation in the hall. The text provided to the synod members was in Italian only, and only in hard copy, frustrating any electronic attempts to have it distributed for translation. The schedule permitted four hours to reflect upon the Italian text before voting began, allowing readers 20 minutes per chapter, assuming that they did not eat lunch.

But even that accelerated schedule was not followed. The text was so mammoth that the entire morning session — some three hours — was exhausted in just reading the first two parts. The afternoon session then commenced with voting upon parts one and two, after which the third part was read and voted upon immediately with no time permitted for reflection at all. [Do you think Bergoglio or Baldisseri cared? They knew the assembly would only run three weeks. They knew that a couple of days towards its end to consider and vote properly on such a massive document was grossly insufficient, but so what? The important thing was to have those Yes votes counted for all 167 propositions - and the near-unanimity of the vote, except for the two most controversial issues, bore out their best hopes to get the 'rubber stamp' they wanted for their agenda, however murky and questionable parts of the document are. Murkiness and quetionableness are after the hallmarks of all Bergoglian documents.]

“The synod is not a Parliament,” Pope Francis said in his final address. Exactly. Parliaments pass thousand-page bills that few, if any, have read. But theology is more important than civil laws, and a higher standard should be expected of synods — if synods are to be taken seriously. [Hear, hear! As usual, Bergoglio plays willfully blind to his blatant violation of 'precepts' he preaches as principle!]

Cardinal Gracias found the process inadequate to the potentially magisterial task at hand.

“I am not in favor of putting that responsibility on the synod fathers,” he said. “It’s not fair to the synod fathers, to the Church, to say that this is now magisterium. I think the Pope wanted to give importance to the synod, but there certainly are things there that could be theologically misunderstood and could be controversial.”

The inability or unwillingness of the synod secretariat to provide translations of texts — despite repeated requests from the English-speaking bishops at least — was a point of friction. Multiple sources said that Cardinal Lorenzo Baldiserri, secretary general of the synod, was so annoyed during one meeting about requests for translations that he stormed out of the room, threatening to run the next synod entirely in Latin.

It is not clear why the synod secretariat could not have had teams of Vatican priests from different countries, seminarians present in Rome, or even graduate students hired for the purpose, to work overnight on translations.

But the refusal to provide translations of a text so prolix, coupled with the brief time allowed between recitation and voting, renders implausible any claim that the document is the fruit of mature deliberation by the synod members. All the more so considering that important parts of the text were not significantly discussed in the synod itself.

“One of the disadvantages is that many [bishops] do not know sufficient Italian, so I don’t know how they’ll respond, whether they’ll abstain, go with the group, I don’t know,” Cardinal Gracias said. “If we don’t understand it, how can we vote on it? Some have said, we don’t have sufficient Italian to be able to make a judgment. We’re saying yes to something we don’t know, and that’s not right.”

In his concluding address, Pope Francis said that the document now needs to be prayed over, studied and reflected upon, before proper decisions can be made. Prayer, study and reflection would have also been suitable before it was approved.


Edward Pentin highlights five areas of concern in the final document, but what caught my attention was the last line of his blog post where he says "The English translation of the document is expected to be published in a few weeks’ time". [More than enough time for Bergoglio's tinkerers to change around language in the Italian language propositions that were voted on. Do you think any of the voters would even bother to check this out 'in a few weeks' time'?]


Synodal document: Five areas of concern
Synodality, sexual abuse, homosexuality, women in the Church, and a flawed but seemingly
invincible working document are a few parts of the final text giving some bishops heartburn.



The Vatican released the final document of the Youth Synod on Saturday evening, and although the 249 synod fathers who voted on the document gave it a sustained round of applause after the voting ended, various paragraphs are causing concern, even if all obtained the requisite two-thirds majority. These passages can be summed up as follows:

1. Instrumentum Laboris
According to paragraph no. 4, the document is to be read “in continuity” with the Instrumentum laboris (working document) for the synod. This is causing concern because the working document was widely criticized before and during the synod for numerous reasons, the main one being that it was too sociological in nature. It also contained the loaded acronym “LGBT” used by the homosexual lobby, but this term didn’t make it into the final document.

One synod father was said to speak for many when he said he hoped the working document would “die” so that a new one would “germinate and grow.” Now that both documents are to be read in the light of each other, the concern is that these and various other weaknesses and errors in the working document will continue to have validity, which would be especially problematic if Pope Francis decides to make the final document part of the papal magisterium (the Vatican says the Pope hasn’t decided on this yet, only that the Church “will ponder and pray over the document and then move forward”).

2. Synodality:
Despite considerable opposition by some synod fathers in the final days of the synod, all the paragraphs on synodality passed with a two-thirds majority — but they also attracted the most votes against.

Many synod fathers were uneasy with the inclusion of the term as it had hardly figured in the synod debates, was inserted into the document at the very end of the assembly, wasn’t in the working document, and, in their judgment, deserves a synod of its own given its importance.

Some were apprehensive about such an emphasis on the subject (it dominates Part III of the final document) as they saw it as a means of decentralizing and democratizing the Church and the magisterium away from the papacy and the Vatican to local churches. By doing so, they believe it makes it easier to introduce heterodox teachings into the Church.

Pope Francis and others, however, say it creates a more “listening” Church which promotes involvement of all the faithful in Church governance. (See a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons of including synodality in the document here). [To place so much emphasis on something that, I believe, is not even adequately defined in the document, is really brazen forcing-through!]

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said many felt that synodality was not a “natural fit” in a gathering “themed to young people” and deserves “serious theological reflection” and discussion among the bishops. “That didn’t happen, which doesn’t seem consistent with a coming-together of Pope and bishops in a spirit of collegiality,” he said.

3. Homosexuality:
Within the synodality section, paragraph 150 — the most unpopular passage with 65 synod fathers voting against it — is being criticized for vague language that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Although more problematic elements of the paragraph were removed from the draft (e.g. three references to sexual orientation — a term never used before in Church documents — were replaced by just one, in quotation marks), it still speaks of sexuality requiring “a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration” in multiple but “appropriate ways.”

As mentioned earlier in the week, the German-language group has been trying to introduce similar terms to replace the loaded acronym “LGBT’” used by the homosexual lobby, but with the same end in mind: softening the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

Archbishop Chaput said this need for “deepening” or “developing” our understanding of anthropological issues is one of the most “subtle and concerning” problems in the text. “Obviously we can, and should, always bring more prayer and reflection to complicated human issues,” he said, but added that the Church “already has a clear, rich, and articulate Christian anthropology. It’s unhelpful to create doubt or ambiguity around issues of human identity, purpose, and sexuality, unless one is setting the stage to change what the Church believes and teaches about all three, starting with sexuality.”

A further concern is that the paragraph also speaks of a Church commitment “against all discrimination and violence on a sexual basis,” words at variance with no. 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which opposes “unjust discrimination” in this regard, not “all discrimination.”

Some are now wondering if, for example, it might now no longer be possible to dismiss someone from a Catholic institution if they perpetrate acts opposed to Church teaching in this area. Informed sources close to the process have told the Register that “many proposed and requested” an amendment to ensure it would say “unjust discrimination” but this was ignored.

Some synod fathers, probably mostly from Africa, managed to insert a reference to a 1986 letter to bishops from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which reasserts the Church’s pastoral teaching on the issue of homosexuality. [I was wondering how that citation got into this document. A small victory for anti-deviancy.]

But paragraph 150 goes on to speak of encouraging the accompaniment “in the faith of homosexual people,” remaining unclear how that should be carried out (it could be in the controversial manner of Jesuit Father James Martin who appears to wish to normalize homosexual practice in the Church, or the Courage apostolate that counsels men and women with same-sex attractions to live chaste lives in “fellowship, truth and love”).

The paragraph makes no explicit mention of chastity. Despite this, sources say the paragraph is much better than it could have been: “Kudos to those synod fathers who successfully worked to get the worst parts out,” said a source close to the process. (See a translation of the full text of no. 150 below, and its draft version).

4. Women in the Church:
The role of women in the Church, while certainly important, figures far more than any were expecting, even compared to the draft report, and features in paragraph nos. 55, 148, and 163. The gist of all these paragraphs, said synod spokesman Paolo Ruffini, is to give “greater recognition of role of women at all ecclesial levels, including decision-making processes,” while “fully respecting” the “ordained ministry which reflects way Jesus interacted with men and women in his time.”

Critics say this “excessive emphasis” on the issue that the document calls “unavoidable change” is merely a means of paving the way towards the acceptance of women deacons (a Vatican commission begun in 2016 is continuing to examine the possibility). The ultimate goal, they argue, is women’s ordination, although Pope Francis has definitively ruled that out. [Ruling it out means nothing, because in Bergoglio's relativistic world, anything can change to its polar opposite at any time.]

During the synod, various protests were made about the fact that two religious male superiors were allowed to vote but not their female counterparts, despite their participation in the synod. Some are now speculating that was done deliberately to provoke the protests and thereby justify this emphasis for greater participation of women in the Church at “all ecclesial levels.” [Bullshit! Explicit discrimination used as a ploy???? That's pathetically wrong.]

5. Sexual Abuse:
The passages on clergy sexual abuse were largely unsatisfactory for those synod fathers from countries hardest hit by the crisis. Other bishops, however, thought there was too much of it in the document, and it was best left for the meeting in February.

Archbishop Chaput said the passages were “inadequate and disappointing on the abuse matter” and that Church leaders outside abuse crisis-hit countries “clearly don’t understand its scope and gravity.” There’s “very little sense of heartfelt apology in the text,” he said, and clericalism “is part of the abuse problem, but it’s by no means the central issue for many laypeople, especially parents.”

Despite these concerns, much of the document is to be commended. Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney said it has “some inspiring even lyrical passages” [Of course, there would be, sort of like little chocolate chips thrown into a banal commercial cookie mix!] while acknowledging some passages “are turgid and repetitive.” ['Turgid and repetitive' is a good partial description of the style of Bergoglian communication.]

Overall, he said, it is “far too long to be read by many young people, youth ministers or clergy” and so “summaries and study guides” will be needed.

Others have said it does not matter how worthy the good parts are if the document’s ambiguous passages could be used to present the appearance of a change in Church teaching. “Vagueness is always going to be interpreted in the worst way,” said a source close to the synod process.

Further concerns were related to procedure:
- Many bishops were frustrated by the lack of advance translations, especially as they were to vote on the text of a document that could, under new rules, end up as part of the papal magisterium.
- In a departure from the regulations, the first two parts of the document were read out in the morning with simultaneous audio translations and voted on after lunch.
- The third part was then read out in the same way, and then immediately voted on, without any time for the synod fathers to reflect on the text.

“All paragraphs of the document as presented were passed,” Archbishop Fisher said, “though not all with equal enthusiasm.”

The English translation of the document is expected to be published in a few weeks’ time.

APPENDIX:
English Translation of Paragraph 150, Final Document.

---

150. There are questions relating to the body, affectivity and sexuality which require a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, to be carried out in the most appropriate ways and at the most appropriate levels, from the local to the universal. Among these, emerge those relating in particular to the difference and harmony between male and female identity and sexual inclinations.

In this regard, the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing her commitment against all discrimination and violence on a sexual basis. She also reaffirms the decisive anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it reductive to define the identity of people starting only from their "sexual orientation" (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986, no. 16).

In many Christian communities there are already paths of accompaniment in the faith of homosexual people: the Synod recommends encouraging such paths. These paths help people to understand their own personal] history; to recognize freely and responsibly their own baptismal call; to recognize the desire to belong to and contribute to the life of the community; to discern the best ways to achieve it.

In this way, we help every young person, excluding no one, to integrate the sexual dimension more and more into their personality, growing in the quality of relationships and walking towards the gift of self. [This is what Fr Z calls a 'word salad' - looks pretty but is a lot of nonsense constructed to obfuscate deliberately. Worse, it treats all sexual relationships - since that is the topic of the sentence - as equal and co-equivalent, when clearly homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not! Glossing over that is a clear and deliberate equivocation that will lead to the kind of forced interpretations on Eucharistic leniency for remarried divorcees that was 'legitimized' in the infamous footnote. Here it is in the text itself.]

---

Draft Version of Paragraph 150:

---

150. There are questions relating to the body, affectivity and sexuality which need a deeper anthropological, theological and pastoral elaboration, to be carried out in a synodal style, as the young people themselves require. Among these emerge those relating in particular to the difference and harmony between male and female identity and sexual orientation.

In this regard, the Synod reaffirms that God loves every person and so does the Church, renewing its commitment against all discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation. It also reaffirms the decisive anthropological relevance of the difference and reciprocity between man and woman and considers it inappropriate to define the identity of people solely from their sexuality.

The Synod also manifests the need to encourage and strengthen, within the communities, paths of accompaniment in the faith of people who live different sexual orientations. These paths can help to understand their own [personal] history, to recognize the desire to belong and contribute to the life of the community, to discern the best ways to achieve it. In this way we help every young person, excluding no one, to integrate the sexual dimension more and more into the unity of their personality, growing in the quality of relationships and walking towards the gift of self.

---