• Font Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
Print Images Print

Another Wikileaks email dump came out this week, and there are all sorts of windows into the Clintons’ world that should give Americans pause. This candid look into the liberal mind, and the Clinton campaign psyche, reveals not only the disgust they have for Catholics, but for those who choose to believe in something more than social standing and progressive politics.

Liberals don’t actually want tolerance, acceptance, and free thought. What they want is a society constructed on intellectual pillars of progressivism.

The exchange features John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank that is part and parcel of the Obama & Clinton world; Jen Palmieri, the communications director for Hillary; John Podesta, chairman of Hillary’s campaign; and longtime Clinton confidant, aide, and former chief of staff for Bill Clinton.

The email chain begins with a subject line: “Conservative Catholicismwith Halpin writing:

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.

“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” Palmieri responded. “Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals.”

Had this been conservatives talking about some liberal cause celebre, the media and Planet Clinton would be feasting on it and calling for the heads of all involved. Imagine for a moment if you replaced the actors with conservatives and Catholicism and the conversation topic with Black Lives Matter, LGTB rights, or women. The rebukes would come fast and furious, and with wicked vengeance.

Another email shows Podesta discussing the groups he founded to incite rebellion and schism within the Church, when confronted with the suggestion of a “Catholic Spring” against church doctrine and leadership in favor of “gender equality.”

As conservatives react to these revelations, it is important to not the controversy does not center on the actors in these emails. Rather, it should center around the beliefs being discussed in these email chains.

It is unfathomable to Clinton allies that “enlightened minds” would expose their children to “systematic thought” or “backwards gender relations” that teach a man and wife are the normative family construct. Likewise, these liberals cannot understand that social conservatives or Catholics would believe what they do because they believe it to be true, rather than just “socially acceptable.”

Palmieri seems to insinuate that Catholicism is supposed to be somewhat “liberal” or at least socially acceptable as such. But in doing so, she condemns what these Clinton surrogates have dubbed “conservative Catholicism,” which is really just Catholicism that hasn’t been repurposed towards her party’s political ends.

Podesta puts the cherry on top, when he prods fun at “Thomistic thought” and “subsidiarity” and those who don’t understand them. He seems to say that Catholicism, especially in this conservative form, is nothing more than a set of misunderstood ancient beliefs that are mere window dressing for high society types on the Right to justify their “backwards” views on marriage, the family, abortion, contraception, etc.

It goes to show that tolerance is a one-way street for progressives. Liberals don’t actually want tolerance, acceptance, and free thought. What they want is a society constructed on intellectual pillars of progressivism. Thomism is an archaic “systematic” thought construct, but Alinskyism is enlightenment. Subsidiarity is a tool of fools, while Rawlsian justice is the pathway to utopia.

Brian Burch of CatholicVote summed it up best saying:

Everyone has a unique faith journey, and it’s just insulting to make blanket statements maligning people’s motives for converting to another faith tradition. Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups she would dismissed. Catholics will be watching Hillary Clinton to see whether she thinks our religious faith should be respected, or whether it’s fair game to mock us.

Just as impoverished in this email exchange is the recipients’ view of religion. Theology is not something to be judged on its claims and pathway to the truth, but rather or on how “socially acceptable” its manifestations are. Political views shouldn’t flow from revealed truth; rather, revealed truth must be contorted until it matches political agendas.

It doesn’t matter that what they call “Christian Democracy” in the American context which, as R.R. Reno explains in his recent book, was little more than an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism that was quickly secularized and co-opted into the modern progressive fold, to the detriment of Christian truth. It doesn’t matter those “backwards” ideals carry with them millennia of philosophical tradition that precede and supersede the Left’s modern and post-modern social experiments. What matters is what you can talk about at a cocktail party, and how it gets along with everyone else’s plans for the Republic.

The truly tragic thing is that the mentality is more widespread than any serious person of faith would like to admit. The incomprehensibility of objective truth believed by faith, near-universal on the American Left, strikes to some of the most important issues of our time.

The fact that nuns have to go to the Supreme Court to defend their conscience rights against a contraception mandate, and that churches in Massachusetts are now suing for thei basic religious rights against a so-called “non-discrimination” order speaks volumes. How else would we end up with a Democrat presidential candidate who believes that religious beliefs have to be changed to accommodate her abortion agenda? How else would we have her running mate, merely the latest in a long line of “Catholic” Democrats whose “personal” beliefs on abortion dare not interfere with their shilling for the party line?

And this theological poverty has also left our discussions on conscience to infect our discourse on national security. At a panel discussion last month, Dr. Sebastian Gorka explained how an inability to “get” religion is crippling our efforts to fight jihadism.

“If you don’t have faith, yourself, you will never understand our enemy; you will never understand the logic of a suicide bomber,” he explained at the 2016 Values Voters Summit. “The trouble is that we have a political elite on the Left — and, unfortunately, sometimes on the Right — that does not take faith seriously. If they go to church or temple, it’s a cool networking thing with the coffee and doughnuts afterward.”

Unfortunately for Catholics, and most likely other supposedly “backwards” faith groups, a Hillary Clinton win in November meansthis mentality is only going to march further and more boldly into our lives. When it makes perfect sense to sue nuns for not buying the pill and openly mock someone for having their child Baptized in the River Jordan, it is truly frightening to imagine what comes next.

Don’t miss:

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religion and culture. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate has previously written for World Magazine, The Washington Times, Catholic News Service, Patheos, Ethika Politika, and The Christian Post. Follow him @NateMadden_IV.

Joe Koss is Digital Editor for Conservative Review. You can follow him @josephkoss.