comments in caps
Complete docuмent, instrumentum-laboris-familia is here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/docuмents/rc_synod_doc_20140626_instrumentum-laboris-familia_en.htm

b) Concerning Unions of Persons of the Same Sex

Civil Recognition

110. On unions of persons of the same sex, the responses of the bishops' conferences refer to Church teaching. “There are absolutely no grounds for considering ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. [...] Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’” (CDF, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Persons, 4). The responses (OF THE SURVEY) indicate that the recognition in civil law of unions between persons of the same sex largely depends on the socio-cultural, religious and political context. In this regard, the episcopal conferences describe three instances: the first exists when repressive and punitive measures are taken in reaction to the phenomenon (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SIN OF SODOMY) of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in all its aspects, especially when the public manifestation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is prohibited by civil law. Some responses indicate that, in this context, the Church provides different forms of spiritual care for single, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ people who seek the Church’s assistance.

111. A second context is one where the phenomenon (SIN) of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is fluid. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ behavior is not punished, but simply tolerated until it becomes visible or public. In this context, legislation on civil unions between persons of the same sex does not usually exist. In political circles, especially in the West, however, the increasing tendency is to adopt laws providing for registered partnerships or so-called “marriage” between persons of the same sex. People argue non-discrimination to give support to this idea, an approach which is perceived by believers and a good part of the public, in central and eastern Europe, as an imposition by a political and foreign culture.

112. The responses describe a third context, one where States have introduced legislation recognizing civil unions or so-called “marriages” between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ persons. In some countries, the situation reflects a real redefining of marriage, where the couple is viewed only in legal terms, with such references as “equal rights” and “non-discrimination” without any thought to a constructive dialogue in the matter based on the deeper anthropological issues involved and the centrality of the integral well-being of the human person, especially the integral well-being of the children in these unions. When legal equality is given to heterosɛҳuąƖ and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ marriage, the State often allows the adoption of children (biological children of either partner or children born through artificial fertilization). Such is the case, particularly in English-speaking countries and central Europe.

An Evaluation of the Particular Churches

113. Every bishops’ conference voiced opposition to “redefining” marriage between a man and a woman through the introduction of legislation permitting a union between two people of the same sex. The episcopal conferences amply demonstrate that they are trying to find a balance between the Church's teaching on the family and a respectful, non-judgmental (WHO AM I TO JUDGE) attitude towards people living in such unions. On the whole, the extreme reactions to these unions, whether compromising or uncompromising, do not seem to have facilitated the development of an effective pastoral programme which is consistent with the Magisterium and compassionate towards the persons concerned. (CALLING SIN SIN IS AN EFFECTIVE PASTORAL PROGRAM, BUT EVIDENTLY NOT P.C. ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO SEEK APPROVAL OF THE WORLD)

114. A factor which clearly has an impact on the Church's pastoral care and one which complicates the search for a balanced attitude in this situation is the promotion of a gender ideology. In some places, this ideology tends to exert its influence even at the elementary level, spreading a mentality which, intending to eliminate homophobia, (THEY USE THIS MANIPULATIVE TERM WITH A STRAIGHT FACE) proposes, in fact, to undermine sɛҳuąƖ identity.

115. Episcopal conferences supply a variety of information on unions between persons of the same sex. In countries where legislation exists on civil unions, many of the faithful express themselves in favour of a respectful and non-judgmental attitude towards these people and a ministry which seeks to accept them. (NO DISTINCTION IS MADE HERE BETWEEN THOSE STRUGGLING WITH THIS SIN AND THOSE EMBRACING IT) This does not mean, however, that the faithful give equal status to heterosɛҳuąƖ marriage and civil unions between persons of the same sex. (WELL DUH!) Some responses and observations voice a concern that the Church’s acceptance of people in such unions could be construed as recognition of their union.

Some Pastoral Guidelines

116. When considering the possibility of a ministry to these people, a distinction must be made between those who have made a personal, and often painful, choice and live that choice discreetly so as not to give scandal to others, and those whose behaviour promotes and actively — often aggressively — calls attention to it. (AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO MAKE THE CHOICE TO NOT SIN?) Many conferences emphasize that, due to the fact that these unions are a relatively recent phenomenon, no pastoral programs (COURAGE IS SUCH A PROGRAM AND HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MANY DECADES) exist in their regard. Others admit a certain unease at the challenge of accepting these people with a merciful spirit and, at the same time, holding to the moral teaching of the Church, all the while attempting to provide appropriate pastoral care which takes every aspect of the person into consideration. Some responses recommend not using phrases such as “gαy,” “lesbian” or “ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ” to define a person’s identity. (WHY DO THEY NOT MENTION SODOMY?)

117. Many responses and observations call for theological study in dialogue (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN) with the human sciences to develop a multi-faceted look at the phenomenon of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. Others recommend collaborating with specific entities, e.g., the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences and the Pontifical Academy for Life, in thoroughly examining the anthropological and theological aspects of human sɛҳuąƖity and the sɛҳuąƖ difference between man and woman in order to address the issue of gender ideology. (WHY NOT JUST GO WITH WHAT GOD SAID? HE CREATED THEM MALE AND FEMALE.)

118. The great challenge will be to develop a ministry which can maintain the proper balance between accepting persons in a spirit of compassion and gradually guiding them to authentic human and Christian maturity. In this regard, some conferences refer to certain organizations as successful models for such a ministry. (JESUS ADDRESSED THIS WHEN HE TOLD US TO HATE THE SIN AND LOVE THE SINNER.)
119. Sex education in families and educational institutions is an increasingly urgent challenge, especially in countries where the State tends to propose in schools a one-sided view and a gender ideology. Formation programmes ought to be established in schools or parish communities which offer young people an adequate idea of Christian and emotional maturity to allow them to face even the phenomenon (SIN) of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. At the same time, the observations show that there is still no consensus (COLLEGIALITY AND NOW QUESTIONAIRRES ???) in the Church on the specific way of receiving persons in these unions. The first step would be a slow process of gathering information and distinguishing criteria of discernment for not only ministers and pastoral workers but also groups and ecclesial movements.

The Transmission of the Faith to Children in Same Sex Unions

120. The responses are clearly opposed to legislation which would allow the adoption of children by persons in a same-sex union, because they see a risk to the integral good of the child, who has the right to have a mother and father, as pointed out recently by Pope Francis (cf. Address to Members of the International Catholic Child Bureau (BICE), 11 April 2014 ). However, when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism, almost all the responses (CHURCH TEACHING BY CONTROLLED RESPONSES?) emphasize that the child must be received with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child.(SODOMITES ARE NOT TRANSMITTING THE CATHOLIC FAITH TO THE CHILD)  Should a reasonable doubt exist in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child in the Christian faith,(????????!!!!!!!!!) proper support is to be secured in the same manner as for any other couple (THAT IS, ANY OTHERS WHO FLAUNT THEIR DISREGARD FOR THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH) seeking the baptism of their children. In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and godmother.