Popespeak: jesuitical papal gobbledygook: Gay rights on the agenda?

So it looks like "gay rights" -- the normalizing of homosexuality and the legalizing of gay marriage -- is shaping up to be a pivotal issue drawing around it many of the major end times players.

This issue is even involved in the Ukrainian conflict, as one of Putin's objections to the Ukrainian push to become part of the EU is the EU's promotion of the gay agenda. This of course doesn't make Putin right, but it underscores the prominent influence of this political agenda.

World Vision had a new policy on gays  (That page shows what a hot topic it is too) , until some Christian leaders put pressure on them and they backed down.  Won't be any surprise if after some time elapses we find them reinstating the policy. 

And now we have this masterpiece of doubletalking Popespeak in a Newsmax Story [Later: Wondering why the Pope got such prominent treatment at Newmax, I looked up the publisher, and no surprise: he's a Catholic.]:
 Pope: Church Should Tolerate Some Civil Unions

The Catholic Church could tolerate some types of civil unions as a way of protecting healthcare and property rights, Pope Francis said.

"Matrimony is between a man and a woman," the pontiff told the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera in an interview published Wednesday and translated by the Catholic News Service.

But moves to "regulate diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care … It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety."

Nearly incomprehensible Jesuitical gobbledygook here, suggesting that perhaps some important RC doctrinal change is in the works which is being tested before launching?

Am I getting it that the Pope thinks the RC Church should tolerate homosexual sin under some circumstances?  That's what "tolerating some types of civil unions" implies, isn't it?   The focus here is all on the "civil union" in comparison with "matrimony" but what happened to the Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts as sin?  Even the traditional RCC condemnation of homosexual acts as sin for that matter.  That's not discussed at all.  Just "diverse situations of cohabitation" whatever on earth that is supposed to refer to.  And "the need to regulate economic aspects among persons..."   All this pompous awkward language is obviously designed to HIDE the fact that the only context in which we ever discuss "civil unions" is the political push for gay marriage as a right.  What "diverse cases" are there to consider?  They're ALL about homosexual relationships.

...Francis also defended the church's response to the clerical sex abuse scandals.

He said the crimes had left "very profound wounds," but noted that beginning with Pope Benedict, the church has done "perhaps more than anyone" to tackle the problem.

"Statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings," Francis said.

"The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No one else has done more. And yet the church is the only one attacked."

How many read such stuff and can't see through it?  It's scary to think anyone could.  Does "violence against children" convey the actuality of sexual molestation of children by RC priests?  And he lies when he implies that Pope Benedict did anything but cover up the offenses, which many suspect is the reason he retired from the papal office.  And if all that isn't enough lying, then he claims that statistics "show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings."  Oh really?  Well, maybe, if you mean the parish priest is the guilty party, the parish priest who visits the families.  "The only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility?"  Well, since no other public institution is guilty of molesting children that I know of, no other public institution has any reason to act transparently as the guilty institution ought, and the RCC has been shown over and over again to have covered up the crimes of their priests.

KEEP IN MIND:  It is the RC Church that has COMMITTED the crimes against children, sexual molestations of both boys and girls.  And over and over it has been reported that priests guilty of these crimes have simply been moved to new parishes where their crimes are not known. 

The RCC is guilty of covering up their OWN crimes.  Transparency and responsibility?  "No one has done more?"  But who SHOULD do more?

Francis also brushed off those who believe he is a superhuman being. "To portray the Pope as a kind of superman, a type of star, strikes me as offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, weeps, sleeps soundly, and has friends like everybody else. A normal person," he said.

Um, Francis, you really need to read up on the official RCC doctrine of the papacy. You are "God on earth" and rightful ruler of the whole world. Oh I know you know that, you just don't want to let anybody else know it yet.

A movie that destroys the meaning of the Biblical Noah

UPDATE April 3: There are things about the movie I'd like to see, as shown in the trailers, mostly the special effects. It looks like they may have done a good job with the design of the ark for instance, and the rain and things like that. But those things are incidental and overall I really do have to conclude that it's such an anti-Biblical anti-God project that I shouldn't support it by paying to see it. Even when I heard Olasky and Cal Thomas favoring it I felt their discernment is faulty, but there are others in favor as well so it seems right to give them a hearing -- if I had the motivation which right now I don't, I'm preoccupied elsewhere. For now I go with the critics.

Here's a page from Eric Barger's ministry. Here's one of the main ones that Barger and others have recommended on the subject: Pastor Joe Schimmel

UPDATE April 2: Maybe I should try to see this film. There are strong Christian opinions both for and against it. Cal Thomas and Marvin Olasky have positive things to say about it for instance.  Maybe I'll be able to say more later.   

========Earlier post:

I can't really blog on the movie "Noah" because I haven't seen it and don't expect to, but from everything I've heard it's a horrible travesty that Christians shouldn't support by paying to see it, and I should at least pass on that information. 

Apparently its main message is that God wiped out humanity because we were abusing the environment, making it basically the Green Agenda projected onto the Biblical story.  Animals are good, human beings are bad.  "Noah" thinks God really wanted to save only the animals, and wants ALL people dead including himself and his family.  So after they are in the ark it sounds like he becomes a version of the father in The Shining, terrorizing the family as he thinks he's supposed to kill them, or at least the grandchild his daughter-in-law is soon to deliver.  He can't go through with it in the end, but the impression that gives is that God is evil and "Noah" at least has a spark of humanity left in him. 

So there isn't even a pretense of telling the actual Biblical story, in which Noah is a foreshadowing of Christ, chosen by God because of his faith, to save a few out of a desperately sinful humanity.

What's really distressing is to think some Christian ministries have recommended this mangling of the Biblical message.  According to some reviewers it doesn't even have the mitigating factors of being well done with a good script and exciting story, as characterized Braveheart and Gladiator,  movies the advertisements falsely compare it with.

It's no surprise that the Pope gave it his blessing of course, since he's not interested in Biblical truth.

Chris Pinto did a lengthy radio show review of it HERE

Gay agenda watershed. So maybe this is the start of the shaking

How absolutely astonishing that it's now considered by many to be a violation of civil rights to object to the legalization of something that was never before in history legalized in any culture, that it's regarded as an act of "hatred" against a "class of society" that was never before regarded as a class of society, to object to gay marriage.  That it's an act of hatred to be concerned about their eternal destiny if they don't know that homosexuality is a sin.

That's the way the world has gone.  We knew Christians would be marginalized and hated in the end, but who knew it would be around such an issue as this?  We were killed for denying transubstantiation during some long period of history, now we're being set up to be killed for denying that homosexuality is normal and that marriage is their natural right?  The world has gone mad but we've seen it coming for a long time.  It's hard to imagine it could get much crazier, or at least I don't want to think it.

Come soon, Lord. 

Are There Any American Ian Paisleys in Congress Willing to Shout Down the Pope?

UPDATE: A friend emailed me the question, "What about the separation of church and state?" Good question. Since that principle got the revisionist treatment in the last few decades, we can no longer have prayer in the schools, we can no longer have Christian Christmas displays in public places, we can no longer have the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse, but let me guess: Nobody is going to protest the presence of the abomination of the Pope in the Congress.

==============================================Earlier post:

The answer to my title is "Not that I know of."

Here's the context: Catholic members of the US Congress, Republican John Boehner and Democrat Nancy Pelosi, have invited Pope Francis to speak to a Joint Session of the Congress. I heard about this as I often do from Chris Pinto, who spent a few minutes on it toward the end of yesterday's radio show on The Crimean Vote for Russia. He mentions the invitation to the Pope starting at 29:00. Since this new Pope is a radical even by comparison with earlier Popes, Pinto wonders why the supposedly conservative Boehner should be so willing to have him speak. Being Catholic apparently trumps other allegiances.

This would be a first, a hideously shameful first. No Pope has ever been invited to speak to Congress before.

Here are a couple of articles on the invitation to the Pope:

Huffington Post

ABC News Blog

What immediately came to my mind was the incident in 1988 when Irish Protestant Pastor Ian Paisley, a member of the European Parliament, angry at the invitation of the Pope to speak to the Parliament without the consent of members such as himself, shouted out that the Pope is the Antichrist just as the pontiff began to speak.

Here's an article on the event from the New York Times .

Paisley was one of a kind then and I suspect he has no representatives in America today.  I'd like to be proved wrong about this.

What good would it do?  You may ask.  Just as Dr. Paisley was summarily escorted out of the European Parliament, anyone today attempting such a statement would meet with a similar response.  We've got a Congress full of Catholics, and the few Protestants haven't the perspective to know that the Pope is the Antichrist.  Forget the unbelievers of the nation.  Too many have been brainwashed to think the Pope represents Christianity and that to object to him is to be "unloving," just as to object to gay marriage is now considered to be "unloving." And besides, they LIKE his radical antiChristian anticapitalist stance. 

So, again, what good would it do?  Maybe nothing pf any note in this fallen world, but God will reward those who stand up for the truth against the Antichrist, and it might even wake up some blinded "Protestants" and bring some backbone into the churches. 

Might.