Italian original: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/docuмents/rc_synod_doc_20150623_instrumentum-xiv-assembly_it.html

The Kasper scheme is in it (source)!:

On the assembly's most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentumspeaks of a "common accord" among the world's bishops toward "eventual access" to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following "an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop," and only "in situations of irreversible cohabitation." The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned "in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions," citing the interest of children born in a second union. On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a "decentralization" of the annulment courts and the floating of the "relevance of the personal faith" of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage.
…
 "It is necessary to adopt a clear and inviting communication [style]," the instrumentum reads, one that is "open, which doesn't moralize, judge, nor [aim to] control, and bears witness to the moral teaching of the church, while at the same time remaining sensible to the situations of each person."

And it lacks any mention of contraception!

In modern basketball slang when a player is moving in one direction and quickly fools his oponent by darting in the other direction with the ball, this is called juking someone.


Have we just been juked?

This is actually quite subtle and therefore very pernicious.

In point of fact, the Church has in fact long tolerated cohabitation for the sake of children under certain conditions.  So in that respect there's nothing new.

But those conditions always included:

1) living as brother and sister
2) the cohabitation cannot be a proximate occasion of sin to either party vis-a-vis #1
3) there's no risk of scandal (e.g., people don't know about an previous marriage)

So as long as these are included as the "conditions" mentioned here, there's nothing new here.

But we know that's not what they're after; their intent is precisely to do away with the conditions above.

Yes, they want to tack on #4 to your list above: "4) Adulterers sins can receive Communion."

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/06/the-gender-ideology-imminent.html

The Goal of A Majority that Accepts ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as the Norm

Since "who am I to judge" came here to Brazil for WYD, the sodomites have been demanding respect with more success from the common idiots.  They recently had a parade in Rio where a transvestite was carried on a float hanging on a cross and pre-pubscent boys publicly danced scandalouly while wearing hardly any clothes.  Apparently, the Brazilian bishops had initially supported the parade, and the Archdiocese of Sao Paolo even published a letter showing its full support in what it stated was "defending human rights" so to speak [1] . This has all happened this month and some of the less conscious Catholics had no problems sharing the images while denouncing them, something I don't think of as a correct approach.

The Socialist government PT, worker's party of Brazil, headed by an ex-prisoner and convicted bank robber Dilma Rouseff, was also at this same time defeated in their efforts in the capitol to force teachers to teach children that no one is born as a "boy" or a "girl" but that they choose their gender later in life.  Effectively they seek to ban the Portuguese equivalent of the word "boy" and "girl" and force educators to refer to all as the Portuguese equivalent for a "child" (criança), being that said child may or may not have chosen his or her gender yet.  The Gender Ideology was officially defeated and now the PT is going to the individual municipalities trying to establish it one by one in the states. Although nobody wants this, they seem intent on forcing it against the wishes of the population and in the name of "democracy" and you guessed it, "human rights".  Apparently, transvestites are already using the bathroom according to the gender they identify with putting the average woman at risk of being scandalized.  So much for human rights and dignity.  Is it any wonder that traditionalists see the Second Vatican Council as the root of the problem since it officially declared that the mere dignity of a person gives him a right to believe freely [2] and the new catechism of the Catholic Church [3] goes so far as to declare this a natural right meaning that God has given all the right to believe as they wish, something which anyone can easily point out as contradicting the First Commandment ?

There is no doubt that there is a huge agenda to push the acceptance of and promote ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in all western societies and whoever disagrees with it is against "human rights" and "full of hate".  But the real question is that if there is a majority sodomite population, who really thinks that the rights of the minority will be upheld?  It's ridiculous to think such, and it would only be a matter of time before relationships of the opposite sex become scorned or even completely outlawed.  This would seem to lend a hand to the "global warming crowd" since green house gases are directly related to the other myth of "over-population".  When one looks at Francis in light of the agenda of his South American Liberation Theology counterparts, it is easy to see the correlation between all of this and where it is all going.  The Synod this fall is going to be just one more step in the globalist agenda to promote acceptance of sodomy with the aim of a population majority of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and degenerates with the key move of tapping into the youths and the minds of the coming generations.  After all, it was after World Youth Day that the famous "who am I to judge" statement was made, and I don't think that that was any accident.  The new "encyclical" also falls in line with all of this of course, but most fail to see the significance.