Most US Catholics Need to Get a Clue


Do you know what you call a Catholic who does not hold to Catholic teaching?  Well, apparently you still call him or her a “Catholic”.  And because I’ve hoodwinked large swaths of “Catholics” (quotes necessary, sorry) to continue self-identifying as Catholics, the entire institution is headed to destruction.

Not that that’s a bad thing, of course.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Let me illustrate, my servants.  There is hardly a better object lesson in Catholic split personality disorder than the Catholic response to President Barack Obama.  According to Michael Gerson’s opinion in today’s Washington Post, entitled, “Obama turns his back on Catholics,” 54% of Catholics supported Obama’s election!


More than half of Catholics supported a man who has absolutely no clue about Christianity, including Catholicism.  More than half of Catholics supported a man who wholeheartedly, without apology, with a proven record, supports abortion. (Obama only reluctantly stops short of wholeheartedly supporting infanticide).  More than half of Catholics supported a man who throws his support behind homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and forcing every American to celebrate it with him.

Someone needs to get a clue.

Either Obama needs to get a clue.  Or . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You see, my friends, I am the clue-hider.  With clues lying around like blinking strobe lights of anti-Catholic sentiment, I still duped 54% of Catholics, oops, “Catholics,” into supporting Obama.

Oh, I’m good.

But even better than getting those 54% to support a man who hates their values, I have even convinced God-believing institutions to support a man who continually saddens the heart of God.

As Gerson states, in 2009 I convinced the University of Notre Dame to invite “a champion of abortion rights to deliver the school’s commencement address.”

Clue, anyone?

In his address at the University of Our Lady, Obama made clear that “ladies” on earth would trump God when he lied about “honor[ing] the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.”  Obama spoke of “ensuring that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of [already born] women.”

Clue, anyone?

Obama has not turned his back on Catholics; he always had his back to Catholics.  Just as he has always had his back turned to God.

But, as Gerson documents, fortunately for Obama, 54% of clueless Catholics had his back.

Gerson continues:

Now the conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Why?  I’ll bet you can guess.

Close.  Here’s why: because, as Gerson writes, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), using federal grant money, administers programs that aid victims of human trafficking don’t refer for abortions.  And because they won’t refer for abortions, the HHS last month abruptly ended its funding.

According to Gerson:

It did not matter that an independent review board had rated the bishops’ program more effective than those of its competitors — or that career HHS employees objected to the politicized handling of the grant.

The HHS defended its decision because it was “giving preference to grantees that offer ‘the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.’”

Clue, anyone?

The HHS, my servants, like Obama himself, has a short list of nonnegotiables.  And one of them abortion.  No matter what he says in feigned support of a pro-life position, he is lying.  It is clearly apparent to anyone with a clue.

But, because clues are in short supply, instead we get Sebelius at the HHS, of whom Gerson writes:

Sebelius — an outspoken pro-choice Catholic — has a long history of conflict with Catholic authorities.

Does anyone see the clear contradiction here?  Actually, no, which is a sign of my great skill in clue-hiding.  No one recognizes the clear oxymoron in that sentence, like describing someone as a 6-foot tall midget.  It is definitionally impossible.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Gerson concludes:

Sebelius is becoming a political embarrassment at an inconvenient time. It will be significantly harder for Obama to repeat his appeal to Catholic voters while a part of his administration is at war with Catholic leaders and Catholic belief.

Actually, it won’t be hard at all.

Because most Catholics are “Catholics”.

And Obama knows they have his back.

Someone does, after all, have a clue.

Ha ha ha ha ha.


18 Responses to “Most US Catholics Need to Get a Clue”

  1. I’m an ex-Catholic for a reason.

  2. I love to be Catholic, but maybe my entire country (Brazil) is “Catholic” as you and also John Paul II said.

    John Paul II used the expression “culturally Catholics, but not Catholics” to Latin America Catholics. You know, liberation theology is a huge heresy.

    It is a fight. A huge fight.

    But, look around. 86% of jews supported Obama and now 57% still support him. They do not know how Obama thinks about jews and Israel? I think if you really look every religion, Obama received more votes that the RINO McCain.

    But, I am still ashmed about the “Catholics”, especially jesuits from universities. I pray for them.

  3. when is the 10 kings reign ?

  4. As a state senator, 0bama repeatedly blocked a bill that would require babies accidentally born during partial birth abortions be cared for and not just left alone to die. That sounds like infanticide to me.

    • Seriously? That’s horrible! How come nobody knows about this? Do you have an article on that?

      • This was a big issue but only among conservative media, because Satan is on the boards of directors of all the liberal media. I found this link detailing exactly what he did:

        You can google around a bit for more story-like articles. The point is, when the Born Alive Infant Protection Act came up at the federal level, it passed (almost?) unanimously through Congress. Even NARAL didn’t oppose it. But when proposed earlier in one state, Illinois, there was one man, Barack Obama, who dared defend the infanticide position. The most pro-abortion politician in America, Barack Obama.

  5. Your post reminds me of the beginning of a short essay by GK Chesterton:
    “There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place; and I tried to trace such a journey in a story I once wrote. I……
    …….The point of this book, in other words, is that the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point of it is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. Thus they make current and anti-clerical cant as a sort of small-talk. They will complain of parsons dressing like parsons; as if we should be any more free if all the police who shadowed or collared us were plain clothes detectives. Or they will complain that a sermon cannot be interrupted, and call a pulpit a coward’s castle; though they do not call an editor’s office a coward’s castle. It would be unjust both to journalists and priests; but it would be much truer of journalist. The clergyman appears in person and could easily be kicked as he came out of church; the journalist conceals even his name so that nobody can kick him.

    They write wild and pointless articles and letters in the press about why the churches are empty, without even going there to find out if they are empty, or which of them are empty. Their suggestions are more vapid and vacant than the most insipid curate in a three-act farce, and move us to comfort him after the manner of the curate in the Bab Ballads; ‘Your mind is not so blank as that of Hopley Porter.’ So we may truly say to the very feeblest cleric: ‘Your mind is not so blank as that of Indignant Layman or Plain Man or Man in the Street, or any of your critics in the newspapers; for they have not the most shadowy notion of what they want themselves. Let alone of what you ought to give them.’ They will suddenly turn round and revile the Church for not having prevented the War, which they themselves did not want to prevent; and which nobody had ever professed to be able to prevent, except some of that very school of progressive and cosmopolitan sceptics who are the chief enemies of the Church. It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it is that world that was, or should have been, abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war.

    As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War–they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father’s land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

    Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it.

    It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. He does not judge Christianity calmly as a Confucian would; he does not judge it as he would judge Confucianism. He cannot by an effort of fancy set the Catholic Church thousands of miles away in strange skies of morning and judge it as impartially as a Chinese pagoda…..”

    From “The Everlasting Man” (1925)
    And that is the book that CS Lewis attributes to his conversion from Atheism to mere Christianity.

    • And so you are saying:

      -We of the Catholic Church should support a pro-abortion politician?

      -We should support the CCHD possible socialist front? Oh yeah that’s from another website.

      -We should we just read a lot more Chinese, or maybe just Chesterton, Lewis and Tolkein?

      -OR… You have been a complete DUFUS and did not understand that the writer of this blog is a very devout and brave
      Christian with a killer sense of irony.

      -OR… Heck maybe I am missing your point entirely, because it’s Sunday night and I have had a long hard week. My age is showing and my brain is shutting down before bedtime.

  6. Hi,

    I’ve been researching Satan and all the details of Christianity as I recently had a profound, divine religious experience where I was forced to come up with a new name for Satan.

    That name is Mial; for more, please see my blog The Story of Mial, which I am now obligated to share. There’s only one post but there will be more to come.


  7. Hey Satan,

    a few days ago I came across an interesting article, about a Dutch registrar who was fired, because he refused to marry a gay couple. The article beïng in Dutch, I figured you wouldn’t be able to write anything sensible about it, but here Bill Muehlenberg is, writing an English article about it (and some other issues that show how messed up my homecountry really is. Any thoughts on Holland?

  8. The author of this blog is very much like C.S. Lewis in being one of the lonely voices of his time who openly confronted both dead secularism and shallow, basically apostate Christianity. C.S. Lewis was greeted with pot-shots from both quarters as will anyone who dares overturn the tables of secularsim or apostate Christianity. Actually, as John the Baptist and Christ discovered, the two worldly entitites are in unholy collusion.
    I agree with Chesterton and Cromagnum (love the tag) that much of the criticism of the Church is “random and illiterate heckling”. I just ignore that blind, faithless wheezing.
    What we in the Church cannot afford is to ignore the Bonhoeffers who see the devil coming. The Church global is heading into a dark and dangerous time. Most sleep.

  9. Most catholic leaders are hypocrites. Murderers, pedaphiles, baby killers, (their own children). Little girls murdered, little boys raped. “By their fruit you will know them.”

  10. Crusaders and conquistadors killed (murdered) ‘in the name of the lord’. Their theiving christian ‘theocrat’ endorsed this behavior. Catholics leaders are just stealing from the world, lying, (the Bible (( By bull (shit) )), ) anthropormorphic scripture, lower astral hullucinations (like revelations), and helping their (lizard) nephilim elite bring about the satanic new world order.
    “By their fruit you will know them.:
    I’ll stay out. Hopefully not to little to late.
    “Born in sin, come on in.”

  11. And maybe the movies 2012, and Deep Impact having a black president long before Barack Obama came around, are a suble form of subconsciousness conditioning to prepare us far Obama. The movies were possible to condition us to not panic when a black president came.
    Why is Obama so important around 2012?

  12. Your majestic Lowness,

    Our plan of “substitutionary defilement” is working! Only you could know that most humans would rather enjoy the desires of the flesh and the [false] promise that they were righteous. We substitute (yuck!) Jesus’ righteousness and holiness with your liberating version, defiling the man yet maintaing the veneer of godliness.

    Bwah ha ha ha ha haaa!

    Some of my minions have detected that some godpunks who insist on “the narrow way” (oh gag me!) are trying to wake up some we have deceived. My team will make sure our captives keep away from these and their awful teachings at sites likes this:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: