Hopeful Excerpts from Study Group 9’s Report

The Report from Study Group 9 of the Synod on Synodality, which dealt with how the church approaches LGBTQ+ issues has been hailed as groundbreaking.  The interesting thing about this characterization, though, is that most of the actual text of the Report does not deal directly with LGBTQ+ issues.  Instead, it lays out a road map for how the members of the church can better discuss these (and other) issues which appear to be “controversial,” or Group 9 prefers to label them, “emerging.”  The majority of the LGBTQ+ topics were in the appended Testimonial 1 and Testimonial 2, both from Catholic gay men.  

As Bondings 2.0 has done with previous documents from the Vatican which touch on LGBTQ+ issues (Amoris Laetitia, Male and Female He Created Them, Working Document of the Synod on Synodality Assembly 2024, Report from the Second General Assembly of the Synod on Synodality, among others), we present some excerpts from Study Group 9’s Report which either address these issues directly or have the potential to influence the discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in the church.  

The excerpts below contain the identifying number for the section of the report where it appeared.  The boldface italic tag line at the beginning of each quote are identifying terms supplied by Bondings 2.0 and did not appear in the original text.

While in the past we have provided excerpts for each document which have been both positive and negative, this is the first time that the excerpts all point toward something positive and hopeful for the Church’s relationship with its LGBTQ+ members. Only two criticisms need to mentioned: 1) the use of  the term “same-sex attraction” rather than “sexual orientation” is problematic in this text; 2) the two LGBTQ+ testimonies both come from gay men, thus ignoring the reality of lesbian women.

To read the entire report, click here.

To reac the executive summary, click your preferred language: English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portugese.

Click to read Testimonial 1 .

Click to read  Testimonial 2,

From the Introductory Notes

The Need for Change (From the opening paragraphs): “As our meetings progressed, we realised that the topic entrusted to us, even in the way it was formulated, raises a related set of issues that call for careful consideration and a courageous commitment. In this light, we have noted the inadequacy of our current categories and operational paradigms. There is a persistent resistance – whether or not its underlying reasons are consciously recognized – to changing our usual mental and behavioural habitus. Consequently, there is a risk of deadlock, driven by the persistence and intensification of tensions regarding the practical steps needed to achieve shared objectives.”

Reaching Out to the Margins (section 4): “Particular care must be given to those who find themselves living on the existential, social, and cultural “peripheries.” It is in this perspective that we consider it more appropriate to describe the issues in question as ‘emerging’ rather than ‘controversial.’ This shift in terminology is not merely superficial, but expresses a proposal for a reformulation linked to a paradigm shift: whilst the phrase “controversial issues” refers primarily to the theoretical level and the need for “problem-solving,” the expression “emerging issues” highlights the holistic nature of the commitment concerning the whole of the ecclesial community and the wholeness of the person, while at the same time pointing to a potential resource to be discerned in “conversation in the Spirit” and “relational conversion,” as indicated in the Final Document of the Synod (cf. FD, 45; 105; and Part II).” 

From Part 1

Need for a Paradigm Shift for the Church (section 1.1): “When we speak today of a paradigm shift, we are rediscovering the biblical conception of the truth of God who reveals himself in history and who, through a story of divine love, leads us to live this story ever more fully, fostering an ongoing process of shared learning within the Christian community.”

Against Abstractions (section 1.1): “The Church’s mission is not a matter of abstractly proclaiming and deductively applying principles that are set out in an immutable and rigid manner, but of fostering a living encounter with the person of the risen Lord Jesus, by engaging with the lived experience of faith of the People of God in its personal and social relevance, in relation to the diverse situations of life and the many cultural contexts. Only the fruitful tension between what has been established in the Church’s doctrine and Her pastoral practice and the practices of life in which what has been established is verified, in the exercise of personal and communal life in the light of the Gospel, expresses the generative dynamism of Tradition: against the temptation of the sterile and regressive ossification of principles and statements, of norms and rules, regardless of the experience of individuals and communities. As Jesus taught, ‘the Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath’ (Mk. 2:27).”

Examining the Reality of  Life (section 1.2): “A fundamental aspect for bringing about this paradigm shift is a hermeneutics of the human that embraces its historical, experiential, practical, and contextual nature. This was demonstrated in practice, in an inceptive but decisive manner, by the teaching of Vatican II, particularly in Gaudium et spes and Ad gentes. This focus is required by the Gospel, since the human is constitutive to the Gospel. The indissoluble relationship between what is human and what is Christian must be conceived and lived by interpreting the human as the anticipation of God’s gift that Jesus brought to fulfilment, making it available to each and every person through the boundless outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” 

Listening to Each Other and to Everyone (Section 1.2): “In fidelity to this commitment, the experience of the synodal Church demands that we listen to one another, opening ourselves to “welcome every person and all people.”5 Particular attention must be paid to those “who are most vulnerable, or those who are ‘out of the game’ or ‘outside the box,’ with a view to gathering their unique experiences (including those who are sick, people in poverty, those who are civilly divorced and remarried, people with same-sex attractions, people facing discrimination, victims of abuse and injustice, etc.).” 

Theory and Practice (Section 2: introduction): “It is necessary to be aware that theory implies practice, as the former always springs from the latter; conversely, practice is intelligent, intentional, and relational, in a mutual reference that prevents thinking of one before or without the other. In other words, reflection is born from the richness of experience, and experience in turn – both passive and active, with its passions and actions – discloses new ways of understanding.8 Recognizing the primacy of experience and the decisive role of practical action does not mean excluding the rigor and method of critical knowledge; rather, it intends to denounce the illusion of a thought that claims to exercise itself a priori, without recognizing its radical debt to actual conditions, cultural processes, and the concreteness of experience. 

From ‘Solving Problems’ to ‘Designing Together’ (Section 2.1): “Every human subject is embedded in a culture, part of a community and a history that influence their disposition to understand and to self-understand. Through practices, human beings do not limit themselves to merely ‘solving problems,’ whether large or small, in their daily lives; rather, they contribute to ‘designing together’ the linguistic, symbolic, and cultural scene within which problems can emerge, be named, and be navigated together. In processes of ecclesial discernment, the logic of practices does not respond to the principle of problem solving, but rather to the dynamics of building something in common. Giving priority to the construction of the common good means adopting a criterion whereby – in those instances where we as Church have sought to resolve problematic issues by resorting exclusively to theoretical solutions – it is also necessary to address problems by building collective bodies, aggregating communities, and convoking them in assembly.”

From Part 2

The Principle of Pastorality (Section 1.1): It is in this context that the meaning and scope of the “pastoral” character that John XXIII wished to imprint upon the event and teaching of Vatican II are justified and validated. Through the performative interpretation founded in the corpus of its documents and made explicit in the light of the living Tradition of the Church, the Council commits itself – as Pope Francis emphasises – to “overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral care, between faith and life. I dare say that the Council has revolutionized to some extent the status of theology – the believer’s way of doing and thinking” (VG 2). In reality, the quality of pastorality can be framed, and decisively developed, as the recovery (to be implemented through the synodal process), of the intrinsically dynamic, relational, performative, and historical intentionality of Church teaching, understood in the light of the Gospel, overcoming any doctrinalist or even fundamentalist crystallization. 

Avoid Correction; Prioritise Discernment (Section 1.2): Since the subject of the synodal journey is the People of God, it is first necessary to recognise and promote the performative character of the sensus fidei fidelium. This is an indispensable starting point for reaching a qualified and fruitful consensus regarding the discernment of emerging issues. Since we are dealing not with problems to be solved, but with the construction of the common good, primacy should not be given to the correction (at a doctrinal, pastoral, or ethical level) of situations evaluated as problematic in the concrete experience of faith. Rather, we need to prioritise the recognition and discernment of the instances that faith practices express and show in action, often through unthematic knowledge. 

The Role of Authority (Section 1.2): “Along these lines, authority certainly has a specific role to play: first and foremost, that of listening, setting the discernment process in motion, and accompanying it to reach the expression of a consensus – even one that is differentiated – when this contributes to furthering the common good (cf. Acts 15). Thus, the exercise of authority, thanks to its proper character in the mission of the Church, shows itself as a participant in a unitary and plural process (cf. FD 93), taking particular responsibility for guarding and safeguarding the identity and contribution of each person, especially those who are less visible or less able to express their voice. Authority must not sin by omission: in a synodal Church, pastors and those who exercise any form of authority cannot evade the responsibility of “initiating processes” and governing them in fidelity to the Word of God and in rigorous listening to the voice of the Spirit.”

Conversation in the Spirit (Section 1.2): “In this regard, the dynamic wisdom of the ongoing synodal path has suggested a fundamental, indeed indispensable, practice for the ecclesial discernment of emerging issues: “conversation in the Spirit” (cf. FD 45). This practice marks a cornerstone in the acquisition of the paradigm shift inspired by the principle of pastorality and constitutes the appropriate experiential framework for employing the tools and procedural criteria available to ecclesial communities. Therefore, the exercise of conversation in the Spirit must become an ecclesial habitus that marks every step in the implementation of discernment processes: not exhausting itself in the solution of a question, but constantly reactivating the listening and learning skills of the People of God, also in function of making decisions of varying degrees of importance, so that the process is transparent and shared.”

Importance of Diverse Contexts (Section 2.2): “A further and indispensable procedural reference in listening to reality is the recognition of the relevance of contexts. These are the vital environments in which communities of ecclesial discernment are necessarily situated. They also represent a task and a field of work (of composition and assemblage) for those same communities in relation to their edification and journey. There are at least three typologies of these contexts, toward which different and complementary postures can be adopted: 

i) Geographical Contexts (nations, regions, continents): namely those administratively or politically defined realities. In these areas, ecclesial discernment is called, first and foremost, to embrace a sensitivity to pluralism, valuing the specificities and peculiarities of realities with varying degrees of homogeneity and cohesion. 

ii) Re-aggregative Contexts12: realities that contain, unite, or bring together different peoples and cultures, and which precisely for this reason have a vocation for aggregation. With regard to these comprehensive and transnational contexts, the role of Christian communities is not limited to valuing existing pluralism; rather, it is decisive in defining cohesion and promoting peace and the common good of that very same context.13 

iii) Existential Contexts: social realities where individuals are united not by geographical or territorial belonging, but by the fact of sharing particular situations of difficulty, disadvantage, or discrimination (e.g., contexts affected by war, migration, or discrimination based on gender, origin, or social class). These socio-existential contexts are by definition transversal and transnational; they can be imagined as “parallel continents” that pierce through political borders, creating not only aggregations of suffering people but also intercultural alliances of people struggling for the affirmation of their rights.”

Consulting Various Fields of Knowledge (Section 2.2): “A third step in implementing a procedural logic suited to the discernment of emerging issues is the summoning of different fields of knowledge: no one (as an individual or a group) possesses the necessary skills to understand and manage the full complexity of ourselves and the reality we live in. We must exercise the humility and realism of asking for help. Crucially, once the path of listening has been followed seriously, one can take responsibility for asking experts not for generic insights, but for targeted help with questions that, by this stage, have become clearer and more defined. 

“Theology possesses neither a magic wand nor the right to the final word, but it can and must help to structure the space for a dialogue conducted in the light of the Gospel.”

From Part 3 

(Part 3 is commentary on the two appended testimonials from gay Catholic men; it is worth reading in its entirety)

Insights from the testimonials (Section 2.1): “The two testimonies, while very different from one another and reflecting the cultural context of Western societies, present several common features. In these, one can detect the emergence of “experiences of goodness” in the form of successive stages of development in the individuals involved, alongside the establishment of good practices within Christian communities 

“The first testimony, from Portugal, begins with a personal drama: the “secret” discovery of one’s own difference during adolescence, resulting in a profound sense of solitude and isolation within both society and the Church. Against this backdrop, the personal relationship with Christ, who loves us all in our totality and integrity, proves decisive. 

“This testimony, after highlighting the initial difficulty of finding groups – even at a social and civil level – that did not cause further isolation, describes the joyful discovery of a Christian community centred on Ignatian spirituality (Christian Life Community, or CLC). Yet, the positivity of this journey coexists with significant difficulties, as seen in the devastating effects of reparative therapies aimed at recovering heterosexuality, and in the contradictory advice received: from those who suggest marriage to a woman in order to “find peace” to those who instead invite the person not to leave “dark or hidden areas” in their relationship with Christ. 

“Within this struggle, yet simultaneously as a path toward its resolution, the account bears witness to the discovery that sin, at its root, does not consist in the (same-sex) couple relationship, but in a lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfilment. This new awareness becomes the starting point for moving beyond a conception of the Christian community merely as a place of welcome and compassion, to arriving at the experience of the Christian community as a place where we are all loved. 

“The second testimony, from the United States, highlights how the protagonist’s current “arrival point” is the fruit of a long journey of faith that has articulated “prayer, therapy, and a community capable of providing support.” The presence of the Christian community, in this case, is marked by both light and shadow, yet it has proven decisive. 

“The testimony first describes the problematic membership in a Catholic group (Courage) which, by pushing for “reparative therapy,” had the effect of separating faith and sexuality. On the other hand, it recounts how the study of theology allowed for the opening of new horizons for a contextual interpretation of the Bible, moving beyond traditionalist or even fundamentalist readings. It then bears witness to the decisive nature of the encounter with Christian communities and hospitable priests, who contributed to the promotion of practices that took shape in a commitment to pastoral service – caring for the sick, the elderly, the lonely and depressed, as well as those rejected for belonging to the LGBTQ community. However, it also brings to light the many misunderstandings within the Christian community, rooted in attitudes of homophobia and transphobia. 

“Ultimately, this testimony emphasizes how the Christian community, at all levels – local and universal – can represent a decisive place of “healing and inclusion” through practices of welcome and hospitality. 

Positve Elements from the testimonials of two gay Catholic men (Section 2.2): “Turning to some of the positive points that foreshadow a shift in perspective and establish themselves as initial stages, capable of fostering further developments in both practices and expertise. Here, we would like to emphasise the following key aspects: the stability of a healthy affective relationship, which allows for the sharing of life perspectives, ethical convictions, and faith; the recognition of the importance of sexuality, which nevertheless does not justify considering it the sole aspect of life; the liberating power of a personal encounter with Christ, who loves us just as we are; self-acceptance linked to the deepening of faith and to active participation and service within the life of the Christian community; and the specific contribution of a theology capable of opening up a contextual and hermeneutic reading of the Bible. 

The Challenge of Reconciling the Pastoral with the Doctrinal (Section 2.3): “At the root of both the emerging openings and the persisting resistances, it seems possible to identify a difficulty in coordinating pastoral practice and the doctrinal approach. Other testimonies received by our Study Group from believers with same-sex attractions further confirm how arduous it is for individuals and Christian communities to reconcile “doctrinal firmness” with “pastoral welcome.” 

“These polarised positions, often deemed irreconcilable, result on one hand in profound suffering, personal lacerations, and experiences of marginalisation or “double lives” for believers with same-sex attractions; on the other hand, within the life of the Church, they trigger conflicts, oppositions, and seemingly incurable controversies between those who reaffirm non-negotiable principles in the name of truth and those who, albeit in different ways, emphasise the demands of understanding and merciful love. These conflicts, though often hushed up, do not cease to be actively at work. How can we get beyond this impasse?”

“It is not a matter of devising a strategy to hide real difficulties or of forcing the issue to assert a new doctrine: it is a matter of starting from the listening to experiences and fostering pastoral and ecclesial practices of mutual knowledge, collaboration, inclusion, and dialogue among believers. For it is only in this way – in the light of the lived and shared experience of the Gospel within the Christian community – that one can come to discern and promote the “good” inscribed in experiences and practices. What is at stake, as is clearly understood, is the overcoming of the theoretical model that derives praxis from a “pre-packaged” doctrine, “applying” general and abstract principles to the concrete and personal situations of life. The task, therefore, is to rediscover a fruitful circularity between theory and praxis, between thought and experience, recognising that theological reflection itself proceeds from the experiences of “good” inscribed in the sensus fidei fidelium.”

Respecting New Scriptural Exegeses (Section 2.4): “Recognizing the centrality of the Word of God in the life of the Church, it is important first of all to dedicate time to deepening our understanding of the biblical passages that – directly or indirectly – are proposed in interpreting the meaning of homosexuality from the perspective of biblical anthropology. It is necessary to go beyond a mere repetition of their current presentation and take into account the insights gained from diverse exegetical readings. 

Being Challenged by Testimony (Section 2.4): “. . . [W]e must ask ourselves whether, to what extent, and in what forms the current pastoral practices in our communities are truly capable of welcoming the life stories of believers with same-sex attractions – sharing in the faith experience they carry and accompanying their journey in the light of the Gospel. In a word, how can we conceive and manage a pastoral ministry that allows itself to be challenged by this testimony? How can we propose the demands contained in the Church’s proclamation and teaching, actualizing them with evangelical relevance? 

Examining the Question of Marriage (Section 2.4): Finally, while listening to the Word of God lived in the Church, it is necessary to address with parrhesia the currently recurring question of whether one can speak of “marriage” in relation to persons with same-sex attractions, equating their relationship to heterosexual conjugal union without recognizing the differences. These include, primarily, the evident impossibility of procreation per se linked to sexual difference, regarding which techniques of medically assisted procreation pose further difficulties. Consequently, we must ask how the Christian community is called to interpret and address questions relating to the educational commitments toward children within family, ecclesial, and social life, in relation to the de facto unions between believers of the same sex. 

–Compiled by Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry, May 7, 2026