Why I have decided to vote for Donald Trump

This post will have two parts.  The first will deal with why I cannot and will not vote for Ms. Clinton, and why no faithful Catholic can, either.   The second will deal with why, out of the other options available, I have decided to vote for Mr. Trump.

Several posts ago, I indicated that I felt no Catholic in good conscience could vote for Ms. Clinton for President (well, I did not refer to her by name by then, but I will now.)  This was long before any of the recent leaks that revealed anti-Catholic bias on the part of some of her top advisers.  I gave my reasons then, and will again in a moment.

Now there are some in the Church who are saying that what was said in these leaks is not a big deal at all, that it was only targeting "conservative" Catholics.  What they meant by "conservative" is “faithful".   They were referring to those Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches about contraception, abortion, and same sex marriage, that each of those are intrinsic evils that cannot be supported under any circumstances.   (As you know, I recently devoted a post to each of those three issues, so click on the orange banner above and you can see a list of all the posts.)

Ms. Clinton clearly supports each of these intrinsically evil acts.  She wants no change to Roe vs Wade.  She supports continued government funding of Planned Parenthood, and forcing employers to cover birth control as part of their health care coverage.  She supports same sex marriage.  I cannot support her.  No faithful Catholic can. 

We all know too well that there are many who call themselves Catholic nowadays who dissent from the Church teaching on those core issues.  They often refer to themselves as "progressive Catholics”; in fact, one such person involved in the email scandal referred to himself as such in his response this week to the scandal.   Those Catholics, as voiced through the pages of "progressive" Catholic media outlets, such as the National Catholic Reporter, are stating this week that the leaks this week do not really reveal "anti-Catholic" bias because so many Catholics disagree with Church teaching.  No, it is bias because to be Catholic, one is required to assent to all her teachings, including the most difficult ones.  It is absolutely valid to call something anti-Catholic if it voices dissent against fundamental Church teaching, even if some people who consider themselves Catholic do not agree with it.

It is clear that Ms. Clinton is surrounded by people who are anti-Catholic, and that will likely be the case afterwards if she is elected President.  If someone who calls him or herself Catholic, and goes to the poll and supports a candidate such as Ms. Clinton who supports things the Church considers intrinsically immoral, and surrounds herself with people who think likewise, then he or she is not fulfilling their God-given obligations as a Catholic, and will have to answer for that.

As I stated before, I devoted a post to each of these issues previously, but just to recap, here is direct quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on each of these issues.  (Any emphasis is mine.)

On contraception:

(p. 2370) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

On abortion

(p 2270) Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

(p.2271) Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

On homosexuality

(p.2357) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Since I know this last issue particularly is a sensitive subject, I will go ahead and quote the next paragraph of the Catechism, even though it is not particularly germane to the discussion at hand here of Church teaching and voting.

(p.2358) The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

We must indeed treat all peoples with respect.  We must continue to love all those who have used birth control, had or been involved procuring an abortion, as well as those who engage in homosexual sex.  However, part of that love needs to be calling them to repent of these acts, and under no circumstances, can we condone these acts, or support persons in office who do.

Before we move on, I want to express my frustration with those liberal or progressive voices in the Church, which include some clergy unfortunately, expressed in media outlets such as the aforementioned National Catholic Reporter, who lambast those of us who seem "obsessed" with "single issues".   Excuse me, when the issue at stake is something the Church teaches is intrinsically evil, then it is perfectly OK to be focused on single issues.

So, as I have stated, voting for Ms. Clinton is not an option for Catholics.  So, what are other options?  There are only two.

1) Vote for someone else.

2) Do not vote at all.

Does the Catechism have anything to say on this?  Here is what it says regarding voting, which is little, but it does say something (again any emphasis is mine).

(p. 2239) It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

(p.2240) Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country.

This last paragraph is the only space where the Catechism speaks directly on the issue of voting.  However, the United States Bishops as a body, and individual Bishops as a whole, have put out many documents over the years in which they speak more on the issue, more than I can speak to here.   You can go on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website, or to the website of your own Diocese, to find out more.

I personally, when I look at that quote above, see a mandate to vote if we can. It says we are morally obligated to "exercise the right to vote" which is slightly different from saying we are morally obligated “to vote".   If there is someone we can in good conscience support, we need to vote for that person.  If there is not, we are not morally obligated to vote.  However, to decide not to vote at all is a serious decision that can only be made when every available option is exhausted, for we are called to exercise the right to vote if we can.

So who are the candidates out there whom a Catholic could support?  A gentleman named Evan McMullin jumped in the race quite late.  He is an Independent.  He has worked for the CIA and in the Congress.  He is pro-life.  He is only on the ballot in a handful of states, as of this writing, but he can be written in on most others.  He is one such person a Catholic could support.   His website is definitely worth a visit.  Unfortunately, other than write-ins, there are no other pro-life candidates on the ballot.   The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, and the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, both are pro-choice.

Therefore, a faithful Catholic can only do one of the following:

1) Vote for Evan McMullin.

2) Write in someone else who is pro-life who you wish was running for office.

3) Stay home and do not vote.

4) Vote for Donald Trump.

As the title of this post indicates, I have chosen the fourth option, and will be voting for Mr. Trump.  I will now explain why I have come to this decision.

Throughout most of this year, I have been debating whether or not to vote for Trump or to vote for a third party or independent candidate, such as Mr. McMullin.  For me personally, staying home and not voting is not an option this year since there are qualified pro-life candidates to vote for.   Those candidates I could consider voting for are Mr. McMullin and Mr. Trump. For most of the year, I was leaning towards voting for Mr. McMullin, whether he is on the ballot, or as a write-in.  However, in the last few weeks, I have decided to vote for Mr. Trump.  Here are the reasons why.

1) I have become sympathetic towards him because of the media treatment of him.   There is clear evidence that at least some of the current charges against him are false and/or were purposely timed to be released at a time when it would deliver the most political damage to him.   I cannot help but think of the Gospel scene where the religious leaders are throwing stones at the woman caught in adultery and Our Lord tells them that  "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7)    I cannot help see today's media as the stone throwers of old.  Only, unfortunately, they are not listening to Our Lord and continue to throw stones.  They want to bury him in his past and sin.  Like the woman caught in adultery, Mr. Trump is more than just a man who commits sin.  He is a man, like her, who can and has repented, and received forgiveness.  Some Evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham have noted this (his repentance) publically, and asked Christians to consider that.  Sadly, to me, it seems few Catholic leaders have been willing to do the same.  The time spent by the mainstream media on Mr. Trump's private and personal indiscretions, many years ago, compared to the time they have spent on the numerous serious issues raised by the leaked emails, issues that involve people serving in public office and are much more recent, and is just indefensible in my opinion.  The media, many rich people, and the powers of government are all aligned with Ms. Clinton.  Mr. Trump is all alone out there.  He has gotten my sympathy.

2) Mr. Trump has said some things that cannot be defended, but has he actually DONE those things?  Has he actually sexually assaulted a woman?  I do not see evidence that he has. Even if I am wrong, and let's say I am presented clear and compelling evidence of a severe sinful sexual act by Mr. Trump between now and the election, then what?  Well, if it happened over 10 years ago, and he has repented of it, I will still consider him qualified.  We have had more than one President who has been accused of it, either before or during their Presidency.  It is sad, but this alone cannot disqualify him, as long as he has repented, and sufficient time has passed since the act.  I cannot help but think of when the sexual abuse crisis hit the Church, and we had priests who committed sexual sins 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, and had long repented, but were crucified and had their names dragged through the mud, and were removed from their office.  We can debate whether that was necessary, but I think we can all agree it was a sad time.  

3) Mr. Trump has surrounded himself with good Catholic advisers, and has reached out to Catholics directly for their support.  The list of Catholics he put on board on his campaign was impressive, some good solid people on there like Rick Santorum, Frank Pavone, Sam Brownback, and Austin Rose. This leads me to believe he will surround himself with good people if he becomes President.  On the contrary, we see in these leaks, the kind of anti-Catholic and yes bigoted people Ms. Clinton is surrounded with, and who would surround her, too, should she become President.  There is no comparison between the two groups.   The kind of people who would be working with someone is something I feel strongly one must consider when deciding to vote for him or her.  Who will be in that person's Cabinet?  Who will be advising him or her?  These are very important questions to ask.  Also, Mr. Trump has sent out a direct letter to Catholics, pleading for their help.  I sent a link to it in a post on my Facebook page recently, it is worth the read.  I have seen no such letter from Ms. Clinton, and if it does, I am sure it invites dissent from fundamental Church teaching.

4) As time has gone on, the reality of a Clinton victory has become more imminent and scary, and only voting for Mr. Trump can stop that.  I think my decision was made final this week when I saw that Mr. McMullin actually has a chance to beat Mr. Trump in Utah, and perhaps cost him that state.  I was not happy.  I felt awful, instead.  It was then that I knew I was being led to vote for Mr. Trump.  If instead I had felt happy for Mr. McMullin then perhaps I would still be leaning to vote for him, but instead, I felt the opposite, and so I will vote for Mr. Trump.  I think I felt that way, because indeed, Mr. Trump has become a sympathetic figure for me, for the reasons outlined in my first point above, and because seeing the polls the way they are now, I realize cannot afford to lose any states if we do not wish Ms. Clinton to be President.  I cannot vote for a man, however much I respect him, and even if it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for him, who could cost Mr. Trump a state, and with it, the election, and get Ms. Clinton into office. 

5) America will look very different if Mr. Trump does not win.  Mr. Trump is warning us in his campaign speeches that this is our last chance to "save America".  I agree with him.  Borders will be open, taxes raised, jobs stifled, and security threatened further than it already is if she is elected President.  These are issues that go even beyond the non-negotiable issues we discussed earlier.

So for all these reasons, I have decided to vote for Donald Trump for President.

Now that I have stated this, I will admit, I see the polls where they are now.  It is looking more and more likely that Ms. Clinton will be elected President.  When I watch a Trump rally now, I am pumped up by optimistic vision he has of a great America again, and the way he includes all peoples in that vision (men, women, minorities, and yes, the unborn).  I see him also prophetically proclaim what a victory for her would mean (see above).  However, I am also sad when I watch him, because I fear that his great vision that he proclaims will likely go unrealized and his warnings will go unheeded because of the likely Clinton victory.  I see Mr. Trump more and more as a voice like John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness.  He speaks the truth.  I just hope more people listen than are now.  We need to listen, not judge, like the religious leaders did in Jesus' day who stoned the adulterous woman.

Having said that, we can still pray for a miracle.  It is perfectly OK to pray that a candidate who supports something the Church considers intrinsic evil not be elected President.  God can do anything.  We should not give up praying.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.  Please share with anyone you think might benefit from reading this.

Joseph, glory of home life and protector of Holy Church, pray for our homeland and pray for the Church.