Clinton campaign sought to stimulate 'revolution' within Catholic Church, leaked emails show [CWN]

From the latest Podesta dump.

Jennifer Palmieri is the Clinton Campaign’s communications director, and was the Comms Director for the White House previously.
John Halpin is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP)
Date: 2011-04-11 21:10
Subject: Re: Conservative Catholicism

Excellent point. They can throw around “Thomistic” thought and “subsidiarity” and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.

Jennifer Palmieri wrote: I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Halpin
To: John Podesta; Jennifer Palmieri
Sent: Mon Apr 11 18:55:59 2011
Subject: Conservative Catholicism

Ken Auletta’s latest piece on Murdoch in the New Yorker starts off with the aside that both Murdoch and Robert Thompson, managing editor of the WSJ, are raising their kids Catholic. Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the SC and think tanks to the media and social groups. It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.

Edit: forgot the link:

I saw this on cable. HA! (If this is all true), “backwards gender relations?” :confused: “Christian democracy?” :confused: Evidently they haven’t studied the Catholic Church’s teachings. Oh, and if they want to know more about Thomistic thought they should check out Ed Feser’s blog. :stuck_out_tongue:

I doubt that Catholics are totally unaware of Christian democracy.

WikiLeaks Dump:** Top Clinton Aides Mock Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity**

And Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager, attacked Paul Ryan for sending his kids to a Catholic school.


So you really want to make this an anti-Hillary argument? Good luck with that.

Emails that people can read resonate far more than Bannon’s comments. The stories that come out are all under the theme of the wikileaks emails. Different day, same theme, different emails.

If this was one email, it wouldn’t get nearly as much press. But when you have emails speaking of you hating everyday Americans (which points to Trump’s point about Clinton having hate in her heart), your campaign’s disdain for Catholics Bernie voters, your lies about how you view Wall Street, the possible collusion with the DOJ, and TBD, it forms a pattern in people’s minds.

Now, luckily for you and other people who seem to want to elect a virulent anti-Catholic, anti-life, deceitful, money-grubbing profane con-artist to the Presidency, the media will do their best to deemphasize this. If this were any other campaign in history, the email leaks would be all they talked about. I am reminded of Bush’s DUI report in October 2000, and the Rathergate stuff from around 04, and how that was the focus at the time. Now, the email revelations get treated as just more news.

Your link/story has nothing to do with Catholic schools or Paul Ryan…very deceptive. You hope to grab the open border people on your train.

It is and always has been my understanding that HRC has a negative view of Catholics. This wikileak was not necessary to confirm that.

You must have missed the line “Also:” in my post. The link indeed had nothing to do with Catholic schools or Paul Ryan. I never claimed it did.

America needs stronger border security.

Catholic schools or any private school for that matter is a sore topic and needs cleaning up. We need a voucher system. Trump is for cleaning up the tyranny of government controlled schools.

While Trump is for freedom of school choice for all…not just the wealthy…Dems and some Republicans continue to believe that education choice is for the wealthy only. Actually, Mr. Ryan doesn’t look so good in his public position.

Especially since it was based heavily on Catholic Social Teaching.

Steve Bannon is not running for president. Bannon is not vocally opposed to school choice. He does not support laws that inhibit religious free exercise, such as the HHS mandate, or the recent persecution of business owners who do not wish to participate in same gender “wedding” ceremonies.

I think the argument against Clinton on this is a solid one.


It would be simple to just say Clinton’s campaign is dismissive and has a loathing attitude towards “backwards”, “ignorant” Catholics. It seems the Hillary supporters on CA are too busy posting in Trump topics to address her disdain for them. How unsurprising, sadly.

Take a good long look Clinton supporters. THIS is what she and her aides/confidantes/team REALLY think of you and the Catholic faith. THIS is how they talk to you when they think they are speaking privately.

And let’s remember when Clinton said that religious beliefs have to be changed. (She was explicitly talking about abortion.) They think the Christian faith is backwards and evil. And when they have the full power of the federal government, they WILL bring that power to bear on YOU.

*“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”*

Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” …" Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,
I’m waiting for government resources so I can exercise my right to arms.

I personally would not be in favor of changing my religious beliefs to satisfy the moral code Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Since I don’t know what yours are, I can’t say whether they would want you to or not.

But for Catholics who really do try to adhere to the teachings of the Church, the election of Hillary Clinton is extremely troubling, or should be.

A question, certainly, is whether she will be more anti-Catholic than Obama. If I had to make a guess, I would guess she is. Yes, Obama had his statement about people who cling to their bibles and their guns. But even he didn’t insist we have to change our religious beliefs to suit his ideology. He was content to simply sue the Little Sisters. He didn’t insist they change, just that they obey, or else.

Imaginably, Hillary will simply be satisfied with compliance, as in taxpayer funding of abortion, outlawing abortion clinic protests. But possibly it will go further, as in outlawing criticism of abortion or homosexual marriage, preaching against those things from the pulpit. Don’t think it can happen? Remember, those preachers and priests are preaching against “the law of the land”.

I think the Church will be in for a rough time if Hillary is elected. Right now, of course, it’s looking like she will be. But the middle class is also due for some bad times under her rule. She knows full well she isn’t going to “tax the rich”. The upper half of the middle class is where the big tax money is.

I’m sure big business is all ready for Hillary’s reign. But I doubt I am, and I doubt many Americans are.

Here’s the email under discussion.

They have started groups in an attempt to change the faith.

It’s absolutely awful.

I think people are reading too much into this. I think this a specific attack on Murdock and his family. I know nothing about them except that they controversial. Rupert Murdock is a sore point for many people.

I am not impressed by this particular email. I think this is part of a private conversation going after specific people.

However, I recognize the dangers in the attitudes of many politicians towards people of faith, If I made a list of politicians that go against Catholic teaching, I would include both major candidates on that list. Is Clinton worse? About many things near and dear to Catholics? Yes. Is Trump dangerous in his own way? Yes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit