QuoteVatican: 'Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer Christians'
Bishops say although Catholicism does not support same-sex marriage, it must find ways of making gay people feel included
Is this the modern family according to Francis? From gay relationships to extramarital sex, from divorce and remarriage to civil unions, the Roman Catholic church has signalled it is ready to adopt what some see as a markedly more conciliatory tone towards those in "irregular" familial setups.
While clinging to doctrine that considers gay sex wrong and marriage indissoluble, bishops in Rome for the pope's extraordinary synod on the family endorsed a midway report which said the church should accompany its teachings "with mercy" and focus on the "positive aspects" of different life models.
The document, known as a relatio post disceptationem, received applause when it was read aloud in the synod hall after a week of discussions, due to continue this week. It does not contain any decisions but offers a significant idea of the gathering's direction of travel. Some Vatican observers said its change in tone on homosexuality and cohabitation was remarkable.
"The document published today by the synod of bishops represents an earthquake, the 'big one' that hit after months of smaller tremors," wrote John Thavis, author of The Vatican Diaries. "The document clearly reflects Pope Francis's desire to adopt a more merciful pastoral approach on marriage and family issues."
Referring to the increasing numbers of people choosing to live together before marriage, or to have civil weddings, the bishops spoke of the need to see "the constructive elements" in those options while not viewing them as an equal substitute for Christian marriage. "In such unions, it is possible to grasp authentic family values or at least the wish for them," they noted.
In a passage entitled "welcoming homosexual persons", the bishops said that although the church could not support gay marriage, it needed to explore ways of making gay people feel included. "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?" the document says.
"Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"
In its catechism, the Catholic church brands "homosexual acts ... intrinsically disordered" and the pope, while encouraging a more welcoming stance towards gay people, has said nothing that deviates from that.
The relatio, released on Monday, appeared to be an attempt to balance the two factors. "Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions," the report says, "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."
The Rev James Martin, a Jesuit author, said the words represented "a stunning change" in the way the church spoke of gay people. "The synod is clearly listening to the complex, real-life experiences of Catholics around the world, and seeking to address them with mercy, as Jesus did," he told the Associated Press.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/vatican-homosexuals-same-sex-marriage-christians-catholic-church
It's easy to comment on that cynically, but I welcome the change of the tone, if not of the message. The part I bolded is especially interesting - considering most long term gay relationships are sexless. :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 01:40:34 PM
considering most long term gay relationships are sexless. :P
Aren't all long term relationships, gay or straight?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2014, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 01:40:34 PM
considering most long term gay relationships are sexless. :P
Aren't all long term relationships, gay or straight?
True. Anyone who is opposed to gay sex should support gay marriage. :P
I thought pedophile priests were supposed to be a bad thing?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2014, 02:36:41 PM
I thought pedophile priests were supposed to be a bad thing?
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2014, 02:36:41 PM
I thought pedophile priests were supposed to be a bad thing?
:huh:
Didn't they say that pedophile priests were the fault of teh gheys?
Eh, evangelical outreach to sinners must be repackaged from time to time. :pope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4)
Its a trap
I'm guessing they're just trying to get favorable bids on Vatican interior redecorating.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2014, 12:25:07 PM
I'm guessing they're just trying to get favorable bids on Vatican interior redecorating.
Really? Like they need more gold trim and naked statues? Place looks like it was decorated by a drag queen in the first place.
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
Or looking at the thread title again, maybe the Pope is putting it out there that he'd accept Christmas presents from the gays.
Has anyone considered the possibility that after 2000 years, gays have finally succeeded in infiltrating the catholic hierarchy? :hmm:
One of the comments I saw:
Translation: you are still inferior but we would really like your money, please.
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Me or him? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:39:34 PM
One of the comments I saw:
Translation: you are still inferior but we would really like your money, please.
:lol:
True.
Though more charitably ... 'we are sorta stuck with this backwards doctrine, which lots of our folks are invested in, but we are being prodded by Francis to ditch it. Here's our tortured compromise ... '
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Me or him? :hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:52:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Me or him? :hmm:
Sorry, him. :P
Only people who never had to care about the wellbeing of their loved ones think that "the government should stay out of marriage".
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:54:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:39:34 PM
One of the comments I saw:
Translation: you are still inferior but we would really like your money, please.
:lol:
True.
Though more charitably ... 'we are sorta stuck with this backwards doctrine, which lots of our folks are invested in, but we are being prodded by Francis to ditch it. Here's our tortured compromise ... '
I know. I, for one, welcome it (more than most gays in Poland I talked to, including my partner, though). The fact that Polish fundies and bishops are already reacting hysterically and denouncing it is a bonus. :D
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
regulating marriage has been the prerogative of government ever since there was government
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 15, 2014, 05:14:32 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2014, 01:27:15 PM
I'm actually disappointed that most of the headlines have slanted it away from the biggest positive: I've been saying for years that government-sanctioned marriage was a mistake. Of course, in hundreds of years, governments have been content to leave them tangled together- ironically, it's the church taking point on detangling "marriage" and a "partnership of mutual support."
regulating marriage has been the prerogative of government ever since there was government
No.
The earliest case of meddling if family affairs I can think of is Augustus overcompensating for Julia being a slut.
Roman law recognised consequences of marriage long before Augustus.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Fuck you, Mart. And it's a mistake for the double-standard it set, which is what has the pope doing more verbal gymnastics than Mace Windu right now.
They wanted to extend benefits to families, which come with extra costs of raising a child and maintaining the home. And then more people chose or became okay with childless relationships, so it became a government principle based on a tenet of a handful of religions. All while saying that the government shouldn't be interfering in church affairs, and at least here in the US, there should even be a complete chinese wall between church and state.
Marriage represents a break in the chinese wall. Simple as that. So either the government had to redefine marriage as a secular concept (which has been happening at a glacial pace). Or, as here, the church had to come out and say "yeah, we know it's confusing, but government marriage is not the same as church marriage."
There are still plenty of protestant conservatives who're going to be trying to cram their pastor's sermons about marriage into the law books (see North Carolina, for example), but the pope coming off the fence here should help expose those doing that for the fundy wingnuts they are.
(https://conservativesunitednationalteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sense-liberal_o_978803.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4b%2Fcb%2F4c%2F4bcb4c2709d5850ba0edf701182b178d.jpg&hash=b85444656760e922f7178140c848bd9b44f8c3e1)
Quote from: Siege on October 15, 2014, 08:12:05 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4b%2Fcb%2F4c%2F4bcb4c2709d5850ba0edf701182b178d.jpg&hash=b85444656760e922f7178140c848bd9b44f8c3e1)
First pane: I don't give two hoots about any religion until somebody tries to put it where the First Amendment says it shouldn't be and tries to slip it into my government. Even then, my beef is with the idiot who can't follow the rules, not the religion.
Second: Fire in a movie theater. The right of free speech has been totally unrestricted- it's just too volatile. That said, I'll bust a quip now and then, but I'm pretty hard to seriously offend.
Third: Corporations are a tool, nothing more. When they become mini-governments, that's where we've got problems. Especially Apple- if they didn't think they were so big they could make their own rules, they wouldn't have to have a person appointed by the court to look over their shoulder and make sure they're not fixing e-book prices.
Fourth: Everybody should make as much money as they can. They should just expect to be taxed accordingly. 1%ers, good. Tax shelters, bad. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, good.
Fifth: It's hard to share a sandbox with somebody who keeps trying to kick you out of it. Thankfully, that's not all conservatives, all Christians, or even all conservative Christians.
Sixth: My degree is from a public two-year school, and I'm going to a public four-year school that just applied to be relabeled a university this year.
Finally: what you've got there isn't a "liberal," that's a "trustifarian," which are ridiculed by both sides equally.
I don't think we should respect all cultures and religions.
For example, I find the culture/religion of orthodox Jews deeply inferior and disgusting. :yuk:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2014, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 01:40:34 PM
considering most long term gay relationships are sexless. :P
Aren't all long term relationships, gay or straight?
Yes, this is why we are single men, isn't it? The lack of sex, not our abrasive personalities. :bowler:
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 07:32:48 AM
Roman law recognised consequences of marriage long before Augustus.
even Hammurabi's code has rules regarding marriage
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 08:37:24 AM
I don't think we should respect all cultures and religions.
For example, I find the culture/religion of orthodox Jews deeply inferior and disgusting. :yuk:
These guys?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FHaredim-Protests.jpg&hash=4945b91a844a1ef4cd2522335e04ac32365048a1)
I totally agree!!!
Quote from: Siege on October 15, 2014, 08:46:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 08:37:24 AM
I don't think we should respect all cultures and religions.
For example, I find the culture/religion of orthodox Jews deeply inferior and disgusting. :yuk:
These guys?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FHaredim-Protests.jpg&hash=4945b91a844a1ef4cd2522335e04ac32365048a1)
I totally agree!!!
Yeah. Dressing like this or refusing to eat pork is retarded.
(https://stupidbadmemes.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bad-ewok.jpg)
Quote from: Norgy on October 15, 2014, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2014, 01:46:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2014, 01:40:34 PM
considering most long term gay relationships are sexless. :P
Aren't all long term relationships, gay or straight?
Yes, this is why we are single men, isn't it? The lack of sex, not our abrasive personalities. :bowler:
Your personalities explain why you are single and sexless? :unsure:
After all, don't the various stats show married people having more sex than singles?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frs1img.memecdn.com%2Fcreepy_c_416402.jpg&hash=378663637339ed8886ae13e78f71bea90a1fae29)
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
I don't really understand his position either... The Church is only an intermediary, ultimately, it's the State who really decides if you're married or not. Your church may allow you to marry a dog or a frog, but Canada and none of its province would recognize it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 14, 2014, 02:22:00 PM
Why is government-sanctioned marriage a mistake? Seems to me it performs lots of useful functions - ease of transfer of benefits, for example. What's the drawback?
This is such a bullshit "oh I will say something controversial to sound smart" trope that I don't even bother to answer.
Fuck you, Mart. And it's a mistake for the double-standard it set, which is what has the pope doing more verbal gymnastics than Mace Windu right now.
They wanted to extend benefits to families, which come with extra costs of raising a child and maintaining the home. And then more people chose or became okay with childless relationships, so it became a government principle based on a tenet of a handful of religions. All while saying that the government shouldn't be interfering in church affairs, and at least here in the US, there should even be a complete chinese wall between church and state.
Marriage represents a break in the chinese wall. Simple as that. So either the government had to redefine marriage as a secular concept (which has been happening at a glacial pace). Or, as here, the church had to come out and say "yeah, we know it's confusing, but government marriage is not the same as church marriage."
There are still plenty of protestant conservatives who're going to be trying to cram their pastor's sermons about marriage into the law books (see North Carolina, for example), but the pope coming off the fence here should help expose those doing that for the fundy wingnuts they are.
The government graciously allows churches to officiate at weddings, as a sort of honorary state registrar.
Not sure why this is a problem - think of it as outsourcing to the private sector. ;)
In any event, assume that it is a big, massive problem (though again, I'm not exactly sure why). The "fix" would be to allow churches to do whatever mumbo-jumbo they want, and have a bureaucrat's stamp at some office somewhere formalize the "marriage" for state purposes. Thus, if you want the mumbo-jumbo, go to whatever church, witch-doctor, wise woman, shaman or hermit you want; then, everyone send in their form for government approval ... which is sort of more or less what already happens.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:23:45 AM
The government graciously allows churches to officiate at weddings, as a sort of honorary state registrar.
Not sure why this is a problem - think of it as outsourcing to the private sector. ;)
In any event, assume that it is a big, massive problem (though again, I'm not exactly sure why). The "fix" would be to allow churches to do whatever mumbo-jumbo they want, and have a bureaucrat's stamp at some office somewhere formalize the "marriage" for state purposes. Thus, if you want the mumbo-jumbo, go to whatever church, witch-doctor, wise woman, shaman or hermit you want; then, everyone send in their form for government approval ... which is sort of more or less what already happens.
Yeah that's how it is done in Poland (and we are a near-theocracy) and pretty much every other European country. It seems to be one of those American things where they take some bizarre outlier from their own strange legal system and extrapolate widely inadequate universal principles from it. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 07:52:01 AM
They wanted to extend benefits to families, which come with extra costs of raising a child and maintaining the home.
the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.
Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:26:20 PM
Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? :huh:
Vaguely threatening lunacy? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 03:29:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:26:20 PM
Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? :huh:
Vaguely threatening lunacy? ;)
Yeah, he's sort of stepping on my toes here. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:26:20 PM
Ok, anyone, what's Siege's shtick? :huh:
The only time he drops the act is when he is discussing ancient Rome. Go to the Rome thread to see the difference.
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:40:54 AM
the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.
Because the assumption was that a "healthy" marriage would result in children. Again, that's been one of my big complaints about the patchwork system of sanctioning marriage. There needs to be some sort of commonality to the eligible couples, so it's either the children or the cohabitation. If it's the cohabitation, all couples need to be eligible, regardless of sex, if it's the children, childless couples (voluntary or involuntary) should not be eligible for financial relief via marriage.
Quote from: Siege on October 15, 2014, 08:10:00 AM
(https://conservativesunitednationalteaparty.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sense-liberal_o_978803.jpg)
Actually John Goodman is a Democrat.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 06:21:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:40:54 AM
the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.
Because the assumption was that a "healthy" marriage would result in children. Again, that's been one of my big complaints about the patchwork system of sanctioning marriage. There needs to be some sort of commonality to the eligible couples, so it's either the children or the cohabitation. If it's the cohabitation, all couples need to be eligible, regardless of sex, if it's the children, childless couples (voluntary or involuntary) should not be eligible for financial relief via marriage.
The societal benefits of having people living in stable, monogamous relationships go beyond rearing children so it is in the public interest to encourage such relationships through legal recognition of marriage.
Even for children themselves, there are numerous benefits to be born to parents who are already married (such as presumption of parentage).
Quote from: Siege on October 15, 2014, 09:06:20 AM
(https://stupidbadmemes.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/bad-ewok.jpg)
Creepiest post ever?
Raz, Goodman may be a Democrat but I doubt Walter Sobchak is.
Considering that Walter was modeled after John Milius ....
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 07:32:48 AM
Roman law recognised consequences of marriage long before Augustus.
How did it recognize it and how did it interfere?
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2014, 04:19:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 07:32:48 AM
Roman law recognised consequences of marriage long before Augustus.
How did it recognize it and how did it interfere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 06:21:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:40:54 AM
the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.
Because the assumption was that a "healthy" marriage would result in children. Again, that's been one of my big complaints about the patchwork system of sanctioning marriage. There needs to be some sort of commonality to the eligible couples, so it's either the children or the cohabitation. If it's the cohabitation, all couples need to be eligible, regardless of sex, if it's the children, childless couples (voluntary or involuntary) should not be eligible for financial relief via marriage.
It was always cohabitation. Most of the legal 'benefits' of marriage have nothing to do with children.
Survivorship rights, splitting of family property ...
Not sure I would describe these as "financial relief" though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 06:21:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 09:40:54 AM
the benefits were first extended to married couples, no matter if they had kids or not.
Wich is silly imho.
Because the assumption was that a "healthy" marriage would result in children. Again, that's been one of my big complaints about the patchwork system of sanctioning marriage. There needs to be some sort of commonality to the eligible couples, so it's either the children or the cohabitation. If it's the cohabitation, all couples need to be eligible, regardless of sex, if it's the children, childless couples (voluntary or involuntary) should not be eligible for financial relief via marriage.
It has always been about cohabitation and historically what kind of cohabitation would be recognized under the law (ie legally married vs all other forms of relationships). That is one of the main reasons gay marriage is such an important issue. It of course has nothing to do with the offspring of the union and everything to do with equal recognition under the law.
Incidentally, it seems that Vatican is recanting. :lol:
But you still have gifts for all the good Catholics... right? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2014, 11:09:13 AM
Incidentally, it seems that Vatican is recanting. :lol:
It will be interesting to see what their final statement of the meeting looks like. There certainly does appear to be a backlash to the first statement.
http://news.yahoo.com/bishops-revise-document-gays-expect-approval-125810087.html
QuoteBishops scrap welcome to gays in sign of split
Catholic bishops scrapped their landmark welcome to gays Saturday, showing deep divisions at the end of a two-week meeting sought by Pope Francis to chart a more merciful approach to ministering to Catholic families.
The bishops approved a final report covering a host of issues related to Catholic family life, acknowledging there were "positive elements" in civil heterosexual unions outside the church and even in cases when men and women were living together outside marriage.
They also said the church must respect Catholics in their moral evaluation of "methods used to regulate births," a seemingly significant deviation from church teaching barring any form of artificial contraception.
But the bishops failed to reach consensus on a watered-down section on ministering to homosexuals. The new section had stripped away the welcoming tone of acceptance contained in a draft document earlier in the week.
Rather than considering gays as individuals who had gifts to offer the church, the revised paragraph referred to homosexuality as one of the problems Catholic families face. It said "people with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and sensitivity," but repeated church teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
The revised paragraph failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass.
Two other paragraphs concerning the other hot-button issue at the synod of bishops — whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion — also failed to pass.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the failure of the paragraphs to pass meant that they have to be discussed further to arrive at a consensus at a meeting of bishops next October.
It could be that the 118-62 vote on the gay paragraph was a protest vote of sorts by progressive bishops who refused to back the watered-down wording and wanted to keep the issue alive. The original draft had said gays had gifts to offer the church and that their partnerships, while morally problematic, provided gay couples with "precious" support.
New Ways Ministry, a Catholic gay rights group, said it was "very disappointing" that the final report had backtracked from the welcoming words contained in the draft. Nevertheless, it said the synod's process "and openness to discussion provides hope for further development down the road, particularly at next year's synod, where the makeup of the participants will be larger and more diverse, including many more pastorally-oriented bishops."
A coalition of small pro-life groups, Voice of the Family, said the outcome of the meeting had only contributed to "deepening the confusion that has already damaged families since the sexual revolution of the 1960s."
The gay section of the draft report had been written by a Francis appointee, Monsignor Bruno Forte, a theologian known for pushing the pastoral envelope on ministering to people in "irregular" unions. The draft was supposed to have been a synopsis of the bishops' interventions, but many conservatives complained that it reflected a minority and overly progressive view.
Francis insisted in the name of transparency that the full document — including the three paragraphs that failed to pass — be published along with the voting tally. The document will serve as the basis for future debate leading up to the October 2015 meeting of bishops which will produce a final report for Francis to help him write a teaching document of his own.
"Personally I would have been very worried and saddened if there hadn't been these ... animated discussions ... or if everyone had been in agreement or silent in a false and acquiescent peace," Francis told the synod hall after the vote.
Conservatives had harshly criticized the draft and proposed extensive revisions to restate church doctrine, which holds that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered," but that gays themselves are to be respected, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman. In all, 460 amendments were submitted.
"We could see that there were different viewpoints," said Cardinal Oswald Gracis of India, when asked about the most contentious sections of the report on homosexuals and divorced and remarried Catholics.
German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the leader of the progressive camp, said he was "realistic" about the outcome.
In an unexpected gesture after the voting, Francis approached a group of journalists waiting outside the synod hall to thank them for their work covering the meeting. Francis has rarely if ever approached a scrum of journalists, except during his airborne press conferences.
"Thanks to you and your colleagues for the work you have done," he said. "Grazie tante (Thanks a lot)." Conservative bishops had harshly criticized journalists for reporting on the dramatic shift in tone in the draft document, even though the media reports merely reflected the document's content.
Francis also addressed the bishops, criticizing their temptation to be overly wed to doctrine and "hostile rigidity," and on the flip side a temptation to "destructive do-goodness." His speech received a four-minute standing ovation, participants said.
Over the past week, the bishops split themselves up into working groups to draft amendments to the text. They were nearly unanimous in insisting that church doctrine on family life be more fully asserted and that faithful Catholic families should be held up as models and encouraged rather than focus on family problems and "irregular" unions.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of South Africa, who helped draft the revised final report, told Vatican Radio the final document showed a "common vision" that was lacking in the draft.
He said the key areas for concern were "presenting homosexual unions as if they were a very positive thing" and the suggestion that divorced and remarried Catholics should be able to receive Communion without an annulment.
He complained that the draft was presented as the opinion of the whole synod, when it was "one or two people."
"And that made people very angry," he said.
A for effort, though I guess it'll be another half century.
How long until the Sunnis bump the RCC from the #1 place, anyway?