Why I am Voting For Trump and Donating, Too

77

I am voting for Trump because he is not Hillary Clinton.

Trump is behind in the polls. I suspect there is a very large number of people like myself who have considered not voting for president at all or for a third party rather than vote for either candidate. I hope those people will come to see that it is a good decision for those who live in a swing state to vote for Trump. Even more importantly we should give verbal support to his campaign and financial support to groups trying to get him elected.

I know it is not attractive to vote for and support Trump, but I believe we must. The stakes are very, very high.Simpsons2

It took me some time to come to this judgment. I have watched all the debates and was horrified when the vulgar, shallow, bullying, mendacious Trump beat 16 other decent — and some very good — Republican candidates. When Trump became the nominee, I was seriously thinking of not voting.

But over time as I evaluated what Hillary has done – all the terrible things I know she has done — and when I saw that all of our worst suspicions of her have been verified by what has been found in her emails, I realized I needed to vote for the only person who can stop her. She is the most corrupt person I have ever seen in American politics.

She lost me big time with her actions with respect to Benghazi and her testimony before Congress about the tragedy. The list of her horrifically bad deeds, some of them felonious, is too long to produce here. But surely a private email account, a pledge to support abortion in every way possible, trading favors with our enemies to fatten her own coffers, and plans to force Catholic hospitals to do abortions (which will be followed by requirements for Catholic schools to teach that homosexuality and transgenderism are normal) are enough to prove that Clinton is a real and present danger to religious liberty.

I am, of course, miserable that the only viable alternative to Clinton is Trump. I share most of the concerns of all those who are determined not to vote for him, but those concerns don’t begin, really, to be counterbalanced not just by concerns about Hillary but very strong and justified convictions about her.

Funding Trump

When I reluctantly decided I had to vote for Trump, I realized I had to do more than that. I had already made contributions to several candidates – Fiorina, Rubio, and Cruz, but I had a very hard time convincing myself to do give money to Trump or to speak on his behalf publicly.

Voting for candidates is not enough. I have concluded for the most part that our single votes in this huge nation count for very little. Whether I vote or not is not likely to influence the outcome of the election. That doesn’t mean I think it is unimportant to vote; I think it is very important. It is a civic act that reinforces my commitment to the democratic process; it makes me pay closer attention to candidates and their policies. Becoming an intentional voter and becoming informed helps me engage responsibly in arguably even more influential and important activities such as dialoguing knowledgeably with others and trying to influence their votes.

By donating to various political organizations, I hope more voters will vote the right way. My discussions and donations are arguably more important than my single votes. Still, while each single vote doesn’t count for much, many single votes do; so it is important that I vote and that I work to help others vote the correct way.

I was not quick, though, to get out my credit card or to write in behalf of Trump. In fact, when I saw that several individuals I highly admire had made public commitments to Trump, I didn’t know how they could be so disregardful of what that was doing to their reputations and what would happen to their reputations if he becomes president and turns out to be a terrible president. The media has smeared Trump supporters as racist, xenophobic, and sexist with all sorts of other deplorable qualities — and who wants to be painted with that brush? Certainly Trump is very likely to do some and maybe even many things I really don’t want to see done. Yet, after more reflection, I decided I had to join those willing to put their reputations at risk for the common good. If those of us who have been thought to be trustworthy guides to good decision-making become discounted because of our support of Trump, I hope that eventually people will realize what we did was wise even if the results are against our hopes and wishes. Our aim is to stop Hillary, a much surer threat to all that is good.

I have taken several positions in my life that have ruined my reputation in some circles and enhanced it in others – it seems this is another time that it will be worth it. I do believe the future of this country will suffer for a very long time if Hillary is elected.

Responses to counter-arguments

For a couple of weeks I have been discussing various issues on Facebook with people who think it wrong to vote for Trump. I truly hope “NeverTrumpers” will prayerfully reconsider. Especially those who have a lot of influence with others.

Let me address some of their points, though most every point can be answered the same way. Yes, Trump is bad because of X, BUT HILLARY IS WORSE.

We can’t do evil to achieve good

 That is certainly true: we should never do evil to achieve good. But voting for the less bad candidate is not doing evil. In fact, it is what we often do. Although sometimes we really admire our candidates and want them in office, often we are not truly enthusiastic supporters of candidates: we just think they are better than the alternative.

Voting by its very nature is an “instrumental” act: a means to an end. Voting is most commonly the act of choosing the best option among the viable options available. It is not an endorsement of the candidate’s character or even his or her positions. Many, many considerations may factor into one’s vote. Many of those concern “contingencies,” that is, making the best possible judgments about what the candidate is likely to do. And those judgments can be based on what the candidate has done in the past, on what the candidate has said, on what one thinks about the candidate’s character, or on the testimonies of those one trusts (and perhaps other factors.) There is no complete certainty about these judgments, but one can have what is known as “moral certitude,” which means that one has very good evidence that a given outcome will occur.

But, of course, moral certitude is often not possible. In those instances, it is justifiable to vote according to one’s best judgment which might have very little certitude but represents the best that one can do with the knowledge one has.

In this freakish election cycle we have two wretched candidates but, in my view, Hillary is manifestly more wretched and more dangerous.

Trump is not qualified to be president (but he is impeachable!)

I’m inclined to agree with that assessment. But NEITHER IS HILLARY. She is a felon. She has given favors to our enemies to fill her own coffers. The fact that she got away with using a private server for classified mail, an act for which others are quite immediately convicted, shows she is untouchable. It is not inconceivable that Trump could get impeached if he did something awful. The Republicans hate him and, while they may be willing to work with him, they might well be happy to ditch him if the opportunity arises.

By contrast, Hillary is supported foursquare by her party, its institutions, and its elected officials, who would not support her impeachment even if she were caught personally leading a burglary at the RNC. Neither candidate is fit for office, but only one candidate has a chance at being removed for unfitness.

How strange it is to argue that we should vote for the impeachable candidate, but we should.

The GOP will never recover from a Trump presidency

 I am not certain the GOP is worthy of saving, but I suspect Trump losing might be just as bad or worse for the GOP as winning. He will likely start a third party that neither I nor any of my friends would ever join. The GOP did not properly regroup after the election of Obama; why should we believe they will be able to regroup after Hillary? If Congress manages to pass some worthy legislation under Trump (such as the repeal of Obamacare), they may become a viable party again – though my more in-the-know Republican friends tell me the GOP is too divided for these things to happen. I hope that we at least get some decent Supreme Court justices and more protection for the life of the unborn and for religious liberty. Those may be long shots, but they are not outside the realm of possibility, in my view.

After a Hillary presidency, we might not be able to regroup or form a new and better third party. Freedom of speech and action may be so curtailed that we can no longer build the support needed to stop her and her ilk. If she succeeds in closing Catholic institutions and preventing freedom of speech, how will we educate others to think correctly so as to be able to counter her? Countries who fall under the rule of tyrannical relativists take centuries to recover. We are foolish to think it couldn’t happen here.

But isn’t Trump just awful?

Yes, he is in many respects — and in some really distressing respects. I make no excuses for his behavior – a lot of which is very objectionable. I wish he weren’t the only viable alternative to Hillary — but he is. Some people think he is more open to conversion and growth than Hillary. I hope he is but I try to base my decisions on who the person is now. And even now, as wretched as Trump is, he is better than Hillary.

roulette

There is no reason to think he will be faithful to his prolife pledges

Well, maybe yes, maybe no, but we can be sure Hillary will be faithful to hers. She will do everything she can to make abortion more accessible – up until birth. She will try to make abortions free and will appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court – she may have up to 4 appointments. Yes, Republicans have made bad appointments; we have been duped. But Republicans have made some good ones too. Hillary will try her best to nominate those who pro-lifers will consider to be the worst possible candidates. Trump has presented a fantastic list of names from which he shall choose. Moreover, some very dedicated pro-lifers have met with Trump and endorsed him. He has been vetted by those I trust and he has made specific plans. Again, against Hillary’s plans, I will take my risks with Trump. Finally, note that Trump was the ONLY person to speak against abortion at the Al Smith diner. That was a bold step and not clearly calculated to get him votes.

His followers are terrible people

 Some are, for sure, though we must remember how the media is slanting things towards Hillary. Indeed, Hillary is even responsible for much of the violence at his events – she went to far as to send thugs to threaten women at Trump’s events. But, yes, there are racists and sexists and xenophobes among his supporters. Of course, they exist in Hillary’s ranks, too, but the difference is that Trump’s are working class and Hillary’s are the elite. But I am not voting for Trump because I want to advance his “movement.” I want to stop Hillary.

Some people say it is a mortal sin to vote for Trump; some say it is a mortal sin not to; some say it is a mortal sin to vote for Hillary.

I think the very act of voting for a candidate in itself can rarely be a sin, let alone a mortal sin. That is not to say that sin can’t be involved. Mortal sin must involve grave matter, and I don’t think a single vote can have that kind of impact. But sin is a matter not just of the external act performed. It is also a matter of the intention. If a person votes for a pro-abortion candidate because he/she wants more babies killed by abortion, the will of that person is severely disordered and the sin is in the attitude that accompanies the vote rather than in the vote itself.

Indeed, sometimes it might be a good thing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when, for instance, both candidates are equally pro-abortion but one is much better on other important issues. Or when one thinks the pro-abortion candidate has many other terrific proposals and won’t really make much of a difference in respect to abortion.

Believe me, I think it is rare that someone should vote for a pro-abortion candidate, for a person with several personality disorders, or for a person who has lived an immoral life (I think Hillary is all of these and Trump some). But one cannot make blanket statements that we can never vote for this or that candidate. Context can force us to make choices we wouldn’t otherwise make.

Voting certainly has moral dimensions of many kinds. If I vote for a swindler who will pass laws that benefit other swindlers and not for the common good, that both reveals my character and solidifies it. Holding one’s nose and voting for someone one really doesn’t want to see in office, but whom one understands to be better than the alternative, can reveal and solidify a good character. Such a person has the virtue of prudence and values the common good over one’s own reputation.

Trump will lead us into a world war and international conflicts.

I don’t really know how to assess this claim. Many speak of Trump as isolationist and Hillary as hawkish. Some fear that Trump’s taunting and combative ways might lead other countries to be readier to wage war against us. I understand that. But more military folk seem to support Trump and prefer to have him at the helm. He promises to strengthen the military which generally makes war less likely. Putin has endorsed Trump and that makes me think he wants Hillary to win. Furthermore, it is arguable that Hillary has done more to assist our enemies than to thwart them. People are guessing here, so it seems to me. Those who are convinced Trump will more likely lead us into war should not vote for him (thought the death toll from Hillary’s support for abortion may be higher), but I haven’t seen evidence that convinces me .

My conscience is revolted at the thought of voting for Trump. You shouldn’t question the judgment of my conscience.

The Church teaches that we must always choose in accord with our consciences, and that our consciences should be properly formed. In the case where there is settled Church teaching on a matter, a Catholic should form his/her conscience in accord with that (i.e., no fornication).

But there are many decisions that require prudence, which means assessing many factors, often foremost among them the certain or likely consequences of an action. In voting, that is very much what must take place. Voters must educate themselves about the candidates and vote for the one who will do a better job of governing.

Not voting or voting for a third party candidate completely unlikely to win can sometimes be a good choice, if both more viable candidates likely to win are equally bad. That vote is a “sending a message” vote. Those who live in states which Hillary will win by a landslide might wish to use their votes that way, since a vote from Trump will do no good.

Much of the disagreement between individuals who agree on fundamentals, but think it is right to vote for different candidates, results from different evaluations of the likely consequences of voting for a candidate. Some very devout Catholics think Trump is worse; others think Hillary is worse; others think they are both so evil that it would be wrong to vote for either one.

Is there no way of adjudicating these differences? Must we say, “We must all vote our consciences and thus agree to disagree?”

No, not before a lot of discussion takes place.

We must work to flesh out all the considerations that are influencing our votes. We must follow the news and bring out the facts as they are disclosed. It is possible that such a process will lead to a clear conclusion that one candidate is better than another.

[It should go without saying that none of us can be absolutely certain that we are correct, and thus should have some humility in insisting that it is altogether clear what the right choice is.]

Now, certainly, even if all the objective evidence clearly points to one candidate being better than another, not everyone (who agrees on fundamentals) will agree that the evidence is objectively clear. What accounts for the disagreement?

Some people are incapable, for various reasons, of evaluating evidence correctly. They may have irrational fears about some matter, for instance. If they are innocent of not recognizing and overcoming those fears, they would not be culpable for their poor choice. (This is invincible ignorance.)

But some people may be culpable; their inability to choose correctly may be the result of some character flaw, such as stubbornness, which prevents them from changing a position already taken even in view of the clear evidence. (This is vincible ignorance.)

Would some people be justified in not voting for the clear choice? Could their consciences be rightly leading the to make a choice different from the objectively correct choice? And thus they would be justified in saying “My conscience tells me to vote for X, so please respect my conscience.”

Yes, sometimes this can happen. As I have stated, one single vote in our culture is quite an inconsequential thing. One vote has little impact on the whole. If it would create serious marital disharmony to support a candidate, then it could be a wise matter not to verbally support or vote for that candidate. Voting is a private act so it is possible that one could vote for a candidate one has not “supported”. Still, one might very much want to answer one’s spouse truthfully who asks, “For whom did you vote?” In that instance, a vote for the poorer candidate could be justified. Example two: a person who works in place where he would lose all credibility with his coworkers shouldn’t show support for a candidate. (Note, though, those who are voting in accord with some personal standard that overrides the objective standard should not be trying to get others to vote the way they are going to vote.)

Yes, we must all vote our consciences even when they are wrong (though we should not believe they are wrong!). We must do everything to shape them and vote accordingly.

One last question: suppose one agrees that all the evidence points to one candidate as clearly being the right choice but one still cannot move one’s self to vote for that person. Would it be wrong not to vote for that person? I suspect not. It may well be that one has a strong intuition of an obstacle to voting that one has not yet identified and sometimes it is right to heed those intuitions, though one should be careful not to use them as an excuse for failing to do what one knows to be right.

Conclusion

I believe the evidence manifestly points to Hillary as the vastly inferior candidate and a tremendously dangerous one. It is to be much lamented that the only viable alternative to her is the reprehensible Trump.

While I am voting for Trump, advocating for Trump, donating to Trump-friendly organizations, I am not praying that Trump will win. I am praying that God will use whomever we elect to lead this country to respect His laws. I know He often writes with crooked lines…

St Jude

The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of CatholicVote.org

Share.

About Author

Prof Janet E. Smith teaches moral theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.  She has a webpage at www.janetesmith.org.

77 Comments

  1. Brennan Doherty on

    I am glad that Janet E. Smith is supporting Trump and of course agree that Hillary is a far worse candidate (even setting her corruption aside). Where I disagree with her is all the caveats about how “awful” and “unqualified” he is to hold office. Awful and unqualified compared to who? Marco “WWIII” Rubio who has little to no executive experience, especially compared to Trump? Ted “The Obstructionist” Cruz who I can’t imagine being able to pull in a single crossover or working class vote that wasn’t already solidly in the conservative camp, compared to Trump who has pulled in millions of crossover, working class, and first time voters, none of whom would be attracted to the usual GOP establishment fare like “Jeb!”

    Trump’s positions of better trade deals to help the working class, a pledge to try to work with people like Putin and not get involved in idiotic regime change and Mideast wars, and even securing the border to help keep out drugs make him, position wise, far better than the typical Neocon globalist the GOP would spit out who could very likely get us involved in more pointless Mideast conflicts and would do next to nothing to stem our manufacturing base from being shipped overseas further.

    Any other candidate would be getting rolled by the MSM by now; at this point in our history we need someone who is tough, can lead, and won’t back down like a mewling kitten over any and every MSM attack. Thank God we have a candidate who will actually win, and win handily, come election day.

    • Great points, Brennan!! Trump is truly a wonderful person. I can’t believe I ever thought otherwise. I bit the bullet and started listening to his rallies after Carson dropped out, and was almost instantly converted. Several major polls are now showing he is winning, and so hopefully he will win, and the naysayers will have the chance to witness a true and noble leader.

    • Randy McArthur on

      Sir, you and half of America are so, so, so brainwashed. You are functioning on emotion and not reason. Hillary is not perfect, nor I, nor you, but she is a woman of integrity and the most qualified of anyone to become President.. Listen to this please…….for the last 40 years she has been trying to break thru the good ole boy glass ceiling to help our fellow man. That’s called Human Rights here in America. The White Man who has had supreme authority (White Supremacy and Authortarian) has villianized her for trying to do this. She is tearing the clubhouse sign down that says “No Girls Allowed”. Surely you want equal rights and pay for your daughters and loved ones.
      A famous psychologist once said: ” We are All, (I repeat), All, born and tattooed in the cradle with the beliefs of our tribe – prejudiced against women, people of color and other religions. Time for us ALL to grow up.” Have a good day, Sir

      • Donna Darbellay on

        If all were tattooed in the cradle, we can assume that you were too. BUT, as a psychologist, I know that this is not true, that we are thinking beings. The problem we have today is the loss of critical thinking. Re-read the article Randy and give it some thought!

  2. Bravo, I thoroughly enjoyed every word you wrote but I must point out that you forgot to mention that Trump has raised what appears to be good children which is a positive reflection of him. Also, the main stream media has mounted such a heavy biased media black out attack on him that not even Atlas would be able to carry it on his shoulders. My faith is in the Word of God, HE can use flawed men to be His Mighty Men. We have been shown in no uncertain terms that Hillary Clinton is evil and deceptive. In our lifetime we have ALL fallen short on moral obligations but with a right heart and a true love for Christ and HIS forgiveness good has ultimately come from our lives. I am saddened to say that what Hillary espouses shows a complete disdain for the America I know and love.

  3. Lyle Boudreaux on

    The logic behind Dr. Smith’s reluctant conclusions is sound as long as one accepts her seemingly sober but fatalistic assumptions: 1) there are only two outcomes worth considering and 2) we are passive, reactive onlookers who can merely cast a vote, donate a few dollars and convince a few others of the logical conclusion to the acceptance of this unsavory reality.

    Is this still the United States of America? Is our system one where we are doomed to such a binary world, tortured only by the question of which of two potential leaders is worse? Too many seem to cynically be answering “yes.” We as a nation need a new generation of leaders who reject such a fatalistic world view and instead have the courage to believe that our country CAN and MUST do better and take action right now. That is what Evan McMullin and his campaign is doing first in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and the Mountain West and spreading around the country – regardless of who wins this Godforsaken presidential election.

    However, this movement is not based only on bright-eyed idealism. There is a narrow path to victory, which Jonah Goldberg does an excellent job of explaining in National Review. I will let Jonah say the rest: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441429/evan-mcmullin-president-possibility?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=

    • Dr Smith is spot on. The time for wishful thinking about a 3rd party candidate is over, and if Evan McMullin thought he could be a serious contender in THIS election, he needed to start before August. This election is a reality check for all of us. The reality is that it’s Trump and Clinton on all the ballots. The economy and viability are not even considerations in my decision to vote for Trump. Life and liberty are the only reasons I need.

    • Marian Johnson on

      We are doomed as a country insofar as the culture is being run over by the government, instead of the government being informed by natural law.

    • Thank you, Lyle. I agree completely. We are not cogs in a machine bound to our two-party system. We have a freedom and responsibility to vote for third party candidates such as Evan McMullin based off of our properly formed consciences. May God bless America.

  4. Remember in 2020 when nobody is paying attention to the Catholic vote that some Catholics joined the moral relativist 50% by abdicating responsibility for their votes because of “viability”. Remember when someone says abortion should be legal until the fetus is viable, you equivocated on viability too and chose an evil.

  5. I believe in the Holy Spirit Where there was a time in my life where I would follow my “instincts,” through the years I discovered that the “instinct” was in fact the Spirit of God guiding me.

    I’m a prayerful voter and a devoted Catholic. I’m old enough to have seen first hand how our society is in a downward moral spiral. I’m deeply disturbed by Mrs. Clinton and her position on abortion and her statement that “religions must change.” It’s clear to me what path she is on.

    Sadly, my financial position prohibits my subsidizing Mr. Trump or I would be first in line. Thoughts and prayers are with him.

  6. We are amazed that this analysis, 9 days before the election, takes such a strong position on the “potential good” that a Donald Trump presidency can offer. Your statement, “There is no reason to think he will be faithful to his prolife pledges”, and his frequent and damning vitriol degrading women… like “crooked Hillary and big fat pig Rosie”. There are not enough adjectives to describe Trump, but here are a few…
    Crude, crass, narcissistic, obsessive compulsive, misogynistic, bigot, egocentric, pathologic liar, and possibly Trump is mentally ill.

    Back in 2014, he bragged: “I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer.” Last November, he claimed he “got to know Putin very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes.’” But last week, he told reporters: “I never met Putin. I don’t know who Putin is.”

    Trumps lack of an even temperament with his rages point to a more serious mental disorder called bipolar dysfunction. That illness calls for immediate examination and to be medicated if the exam is positive.

    God save the Union.

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      “Rages”??? “Bipolar dysfunction”?

      This is the sort of slanderous slime I wrote about in another comment, with which laity and bishops have disgraced themselves and the Church.

        • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

          No slander is involved in telling someone that a certain action is a mortal sin.

          If I tell you that committing adultery with the man next door is a mortal sin, I am not slandering you.

      • Do you own a TV? Did you see the rally where he rages while mimicking a disabled reporter? He needs to be medicated.

        I’m not able to gather your thoughts on the church, Padre. If you saw Trump at the annual Al Smith dinner his penchant and obsession to focus on the person and not the issue was frightening.

        With all due respect, say a prayer for the nation if I am right.

        • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

          Trump never mocked a reporter for his disability. Just one more slander against Trump that you feel entitled to repeat without doing any research.

  7. melanie statom on

    Electing a rabid wolf to take care of the flock, never works well for the flock….Anyone who openly and repeatedly advocates revenge as a moral ” good” is anti-life…escalating enmity in this day and age is reckless and irresponsible. A leader who would bring us to the brink of anarchy is no sound choice for Christians or any American.

  8. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

    I have never seen a torrent of wretched, fallacious advice posing as Catholic moral thinking, as I have seen this year, both from laity and bishops.

    I have seen blind, spittle-flecked rage from Catholics and Protestants, who had their heart set on having a Bible-banging televangelist with a wife with big hair in the White House. No other nominee will do!

    A bishop has said that Catholics should not vote for a candidate just to keep another candidate out of office. What????? That is the BEST reason for casting a vote–to keep a monstrously evil candidate out of office. THAT is when voting for the candidate who can beat the monstrously evil candidate is STRICTLY OBLIGATORY.

    And I disagree that a vote cannot be grave matter. It is not a matter of “how much impact one vote can have.” It is a matter of giving FORMAL approval of criminal, monstrously evil actions. I.e., all that Hillary promises to do: kill babies, abolish the borders, continue the Jihadist invasion, give amnesty to 30-4- million illegals–who vote 70-80% pro-abortion.

    I have been horrified by the “Catholic” commentators who vomit out the smears against Trump–smears that originated in the Hillary machine. Trump is “authoritarian,” Trump mocked a disabled reporter, Trump will appoint his pro-abortion sister to the Supreme Court. These things either never happened, or are not going to happen.

    Trump’s sister is 74 years old. He made the remark at her birthday party.

    Trump is on video using the same “flustered” gestures when speaking about the NYT reporter, about Ted Cruz, about HIMSELF, and six other people.

    The case that Trump is “authoritarian” is that HE SAID HE WOULD DO THINGS! I.e., “I will build a wall.” HASN’T TRUMP EVER HEARD OF CONGRESS!!! HE WILL IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION!

    I have seen “Catholics” delivering this sick parody of “Catholic” moral reasoning: “It is intrinsically wrong to vote for Trump. One cannot do evil that good may result. Therefore I cannot vote for Trump even to keep Hillary out of office.”

    I have seen “Catholics” delivering this sick pronouncement: “A vote for Trump is sinful, unless you can be absolutely sure that he will keep all his pro-life commitments PERFECTLY.”

    I read on a “Catholic” blog that “Trump has absolutely no record of any selfless action or activity benefiting the larger community.” I am not making this up.

    I guess that explains all the plaques and trophies from charities that line Trump’s office. And the many, many stories told by “little people” Trump has assisted in times of need and tragedy.

    Trump did not defeat his opponents with epithets. He defeated them because he was the ONLY candidate they trust to stop the Muslim/Mexican invasion of the U.S. An invasion, by the way, that has the full-throated support of the Catholic hierarchy–from the Pope on down.

    Never a word is spoken by the Pope or any bishop about the thousands of Americans who have been raped and murdered by Mexican and Muslim invaders, legal and illegal.

    And then, of course, there are the “women,” hired by Hillary’s criminal gang, whose stories have been exploded by relatives, by their own friendly emails to Trump, by witnesses, etc. But I still see “Catholic” bloggers peddling these exploded stories.

    The Catholic bishops (except for Archbishop Samuel Aquila) and the Catholic blogosphere have disgraced themselves again and again in this election cycle, spewing invective and stringing together phrases from Catholic moral theology without any reason or sense whatever.

    We are NOT faced with two horrible candidates. We are faced, on the one hand, with a non-politician who saw–correctly–that ALL of the candidates of both parties were going to offer NO resistance to the abolition of the United States through INVASION. (Just look at Europe.) On the other hand, a thrice-aborted (at least) woman who slavers for the blood of babies, who will legalize 30 million or so pro-abortion voters, who will continue the invasion of the U.S. by beheaders and rapists.

    It is self-evident that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a mortal sin.

    Failure to vote for Trump is one-half a vote for Clinton. But there’s no such thing as half a mortal sin.

    • This is such an unhinged, inaccurate, clueless screed that it’s extraordinarily unbecoming of a priest. Unfortunately, this is also what happens when a priest lets his politics, and not Holy Mother Church, guide his thinking. A priest must do better than us run-of-the-mill laity.

      Instead, join the crowd of us who, in consultation with the fullness of Church teaching, refuse to vote for either and refuse to make excuses for either candidate. And if you, in consultation with the fullness of Church teaching, feel obligated to vote for a candidate or the other, still don’t make excuses for that candidate; just acknowledge you feel this person will do less damage. Then be at peace.

      In any case, anyone who believes, seriously, that the Church obligates its flock in the US to vote for Mr. Trump needs a refresher course on Church teachings, because it’s, er, obviously wrong.

      • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

        Your comment is a string of gratuitous assertions and name-calling. No facts, no moral reasoning. Thus, no refutation is necessary.

          • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

            “Unhinged,” “inaccurate,” “clueless.”

            Those are characterizations, not facts. Otherwise known as name-calling.

        • Father:

          There’s no excuse for a priest of God to write: “Never a word is spoken by the Pope or any bishop about the thousands of Americans who have been raped and murdered by Mexican and Muslim invaders, legal and illegal.”

          There’s no excuse for a priest of God to write: “And then, of course, there are the “women,” hired by Hillary’s criminal gang, whose stories have been exploded by relatives, by their own friendly emails to Trump, by witnesses, etc. But I still see “Catholic” bloggers peddling these exploded stories.”

          There’s no excuse for a priest of God to write: “I have seen blind, spittle-flecked rage from Catholics and Protestants, who had their heart set on having a Bible-banging televangelist with a wife with big hair in the White House. No other nominee will do!”

          There’s no excuse for a priest of God to write: “It is a matter of giving FORMAL approval of criminal, monstrously evil actions. I.e., all that Hillary promises to do: kill babies, abolish the borders, continue the Jihadist invasion, give amnesty to 30-4- million illegals–who vote 70-80% pro-abortion.”

          You may want to look up the Gish gallop, because it’s what you’ve employed. Essentially, it’s tossing out so many straw men and falsehoods that there’s no way to respond to all it of without writing a book.

          But more importantly, priests are called to rise above the muck, not wallow in it. You, Father, were set aside for a higher purpose. What you’ve written here, to put it mildly, is not what priests should be doing.

          So we’re left at the same point we were before. Father, please let Holy Mother Church, not your politics, guide you. Right now, it’s clearly the other way around.

          • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

            I have the best excuse in the world. Namely, everything I said is the truth.

            I’m sorry I’m not the kind of priest you prefer. I suggest you make yourself a nice big bowl of soft, mushy oatmeal, and you can talk to that.

          • You all might want to brush up on Saint John Paul ll’s Evangelium Vitae (March 25, 1995). He wrote that there is an issue that is number one and that issue is life. There is no seamless garment with life in the mix. Thank God, and JP ll, for making sure our “Holy Mother Church” is clear about it.
            Thank you Father for getting the facts out there and for the moral courage to do so. The left has cowed our religious into thinking their views do not belong in the public square but are to be espoused only in church. Wrong.
            On Tuesday night we will know if this country has done the right thing in the eyes of God. Never before has the choice been as stark as the one before us where on national television, a candidate doubled down in support of late term abortion. God Bless this country.

      • Pope Benedict XVI on

        Don’t think that every person who calls himself a priest on the internet is one. “FR. VINCENT FITZPATRICK” is most likely just a person posing as a priest to cause a scandal. So please don’t be scandalized by his manners as though he is one. Here is another website where he does something similar but fails to identify himself.

        http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/02/17/joe-bidens-forehead-makes-an-appearance/

        I think that in the case of the above website that “he” stops writing under the “Fr” handle after he is called out, and starts again under a different handle from which he defends his initial position. crafty.

        Isn’t there anyone on this website that monitors these conversations that can cut out someone impersonating a priest?

        • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

          You have become so accustomed to effeminate, pro-abortion bishops and priests that when a priest calls attention to mortal sins–such as the mortal sin of giving Communion to Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden–you can only assume he is an impostor! Pathetic.

    • Christina K Achebe on

      It has been a pleasure reading all of the above helpful personal opinions as it relates to my first divisive presidential experience in America. Prof. Janet, thanks. Fr. Fitzpatrick, yours was equally thought-provoking, thank you. I had planned to vote on the propositions only, but I will cast my vote on the presidency too so help me God.

  9. Thank you, Prof. Janet E. Smith.

    Like you, I’m voting for Trump, for all the good reasons you enumerated. But also because he, more than any other candidate, is fighting the horribly crippling “political correctness” in our society.
    Thanks again and God bless you.

  10. William Wehrman on

    I agree with you Prof Smith. We need to critically evaluate the situation before us and choose. Thank you for strong argument. I am supporting Trump too. He is the much better choice.

  11. If we lose the Supreme Court, our country is toast! We are in a street fight of the worst proportions. It ain’t pretty but then again what’s the alternative? Thank you DJT for taking it to all those who abuse the system for their own personal gain … Republicans Democrats & Independents. It’s not too late Marco, Ted, JEB the two Johns and Mr. Speaker to back back DJT 110%. Unite & Fight the evil, corrupt clintons!

    • I don’t get it… what is losing SCOTTUS? How will that “loss” manifest itself? I thought SCOTUS was supposed to interpret the Constitution. What is this “them against us”?

      After watching the boring primary and debates no one of should mind could come away with a clear picture. That is, if you are not a single issue person. Speaking of sound minds…

      Clinton displays the coolness and temperament of a POTUS. I would feel comfortable with her in control of the nuclear codes. Trump is crude, narcissistic, cannot say he is sorry and he is a bully. He shows signs of a mental illness, (manic depression), also called bipolar dysfunction. If he has this illness he needs to be medicated and soon. He should not be allowed to serve.

      He declares that the is Pro-life. The only thin he is Pro for is Pro-Donald.

      • <>

        Where have you been, Morgan? SCOTUS has been legislating from the bench in favor of anti-life and anti-traditional marriage for sometime now.

        Even the “Catholics” in the SC are not above their leftwing politics.

        Roberts. who changed insurance premium for Obamacare into taxes, just to make it legal? Sotomayor and Kennedy, who favored same sex “marriage” and overturned California votes against it? The only sane pro-life and pro-traditional marriage Catholics in the past few years have been Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. And sadly, Scalia is dead.

        In the next few years, there will be more than two vacancies to fill in the court. Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer and may retire or die. Breyer, Kennedy and Thomas are all getting up there in age and one or two of them have dropped hints they could be retiring instead of serving for life.

        A Hillary Supreme Court will be over the top in pro-death liberalism, given her politics. She wants churches to change their religious beliefs about the sanctity of life – not just on abortion for full-term babies, but also euthanasia, stem cell research, organ transplants, and transgender surgery. Clinton, who believes in same sex “marriage.”‘ Are you kidding? A Hillary Supreme Court will be packed with leftist justices and will look like a Soviet politburo.

        On the other hand, Trump has compiled and made public a list of legal eagles that have been vetted to be pro-life, will defend the constitution and will not legislate from the bench. He promises that if he wins the elections, his nominees for the courts (not just the SC but the minor courts as well) will be picked from this list.

        Morgan, you may not believe that Trump is now pro-life, but at least believe his would-be choice for justices.

      • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

        Wow. You parrot anti-Trump smears–and it’s all about totally unverifiable insults.

        If Trump is bi-polar, has “rages,” etc., can you find ONE reference to to ANY such faults BEFORE 2015???

        And you are totally ignorant of the power of the Supreme Court, and how it has been abusing its power for decades.

        Yet you have positive FEELINGS about a pro-abortion fanatic! And it’s on the basis of your profound ignorance, and your feelings, that you are going to vote for Partial-Birth Abortion, the legalization of 30 million new pro-abortion voters, and the importation of hundreds of thousands of jihad warriors.

      • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

        Another pro-abortion shill, revealing that you know NOTHING about the pro-life movement.

        The number of obvious pro-abortion trolls on this page is amazing. Earning their little salaries from Hillary and Soros.

  12. While I personally experience the depression that more orthodox Catholics feel in the prospect of a Clinton presidency, I cannot bring myself to support Trump. Let’s face it, on religious liberty it’s just more of the same. We have had 8 bad years of Obama and will have another bad 4 years of Clinton. We need to have a sober Republican party that can produce a decent leader who is competitive in general elections. We will not have a chance at electing a decent Republican if Trump were to win the presidency. I sincerely doubt he will win this election but even if he did he would likely not support pro life policies and he would permanently taint any good positions that he did decide to support. The entire Republican platform for this decade will be associated with “Trumpism”. We have lost much of the middle electorate by having him win our primary.

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      Trump won the nomination because every other candidate, without exception, was either an actual Bush or a tool of the Bush Crime Family.

      Your “sober” Republican Party is a criminal enterprise in league with the Clintons, Goldman Sachs and the other mega-banks, and George Soros.

      If Hillary “wins,” she will legalize 30 million illegals, who will kill the pro-life movement and make the U.S. a one-party state. The borders will be erased, and the U.S. will be overwhelmed by Jihadists. There will be no real election in 2020.

      This election is not between Eisenhower and Stevenson, or Nixon and Humphrey. It is an election between national suicide or national survival.

      Anyone who does not understand this is either a traitor or a sleepwalker.

  13. I could only wish that at least one commentator had given a graphic description of late-term abortion. Since no one has, I will. As late as the last day of a pregnancy — i.e. when the child is completely formed and ready to be born and could easily survive outside the womb — a surgeon inserts a tube through the womb and into the child’s head and sucks out its brains. The head collapses, the child dies, and then it is removed, dead, from the mother. Can any one explain why killing a completely formed child inside the womb is called an abortion and killing it a few minutes later when it has been delivered is murder? It’s murder either way. It’s just not politically correct to use the word murder. Hillary Clinton completely supports such murders. Donald Trump does not. Mel Livatino

  14. Roe v. Wade passed w a supreme court which held 6 republicans and 3 democrats. Well. So much there. Abortion is not the only life issue. Global thermo-nuclear war is the first life issue. Billion of lives gone..in minutes. Donald has been profiled by reputable proffesionals as narcisitic. He is volatile,reactionary,confrontational. Hilary.. is evil. My vote for third-party is not for Johnson but for his party. In 4 years we hope to have a better candidate and with enough votes and next time we will get Federal backing in campaign funds and a spot in the debates to show that state rights will chip away at the monstrosity of abortion because States will be able to make abortion illegal in their own State without Federal interference; this is where we can begin by building for the future not picking one of two horrible choices. We were told to pray before we vote. I don’t believe many Catholics do. I was in a restaurant this morning and the men I heard speaking on behalf of Trump against Hillary were using some of the most vile,hateful, divisive, racist, sexist,filthy,un-Christian and disgusting talk I’ve heard in years. I am not throwing my vote away. I am voting for Real Change. I know Johnson personally supports abortion but the party does not. The libertarian party does not believe the government should have any say in abortion. Additionally it is the women who seek abortion, not Hillary with the National Guard coming to their door and forcing them to have abortions.At least not yet. We must start at the root by speaking to our own Catholic women and the Protestant women who together make up over half of the abortions in this country. I love the Hyde Amendment,and I am happy that It saved over 2 million infant lives and I know that we need to do all we can, but the threat of nuclear war outweighs everything.. so I am voting,after much prayer, my conscience for real change, or at least the hope of such a thing. God’s will ..will be done one day. In every realm, every domain, every dimension,and in every aspect of time.john farkas

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      You haven’t been paying much attention. Hillary is a globalist, like the Bushes, who are criminals in partnership with the Clintons. She is the one threatening war with Russia, by calling for a no-fly zone over Syria. Hillary also accepted bribes, to sell Russia 20% of U.S. uranium.

        • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

          Your comment is meaningless.

          This is exactly what has been so scandalous about Catholics’ discussion this entire year. Low-quality “thought,” lots and lots of sentimentality and mindless repetition of cheap shots.

          It is no wonder the Pope has been able to hoodwink so many Catholics into passive acceptance of invasion by murderers, rapists, and jihad warriors.

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      The quality of your thinking is extraordinarily low.

      One example: When the justices who made up the Court in 1973 were appointed (from the 1930s to the 1970’s), NOBODY was thinking about abortion.

      Thus, the fact that Republican appointees were in the majority in Roe is totally, absolutely, utterly irrelevant to the appointees Trump has committed to pick.

      Only a pro-abortion shill would put forth such a blatantly cheap, invalid argument against the CURRENT Republican candidate.

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      The line you are pushing, that we should give up on changing the law, and just talk to women, “change hearts and minds,” is just another of the standard items from the pro-abortion bag of tricks. It is intended to soothe and demoralize the pro-life movement.

  15. Pingback: Great Reads for Monday, October 31, 2016 - American Greatness

  16. This article solidified my third party vote decision. Is there a single argument in favor of Trump, other than “Hilary is worse?” Dr. Smith didn’t make it. I am voting my conscious for a truly pro-life candidate. Consider it a little act of faith, a mustard seed perhaps, for God to do with what pleases him.

  17. Amen, amen! I was waiting for someone amazing in the catholic community to come out and say it! Janet, you are so bold and brave for writing this, I’m so grateful for your leadership here. I’m a little embarrassed at most of the church for slashing trump up at horribly as they have; he’s not perfect, but he’s reflective of where our culture is at. Hilary would be so. Scary.

  18. Ms. Smith; I am trying to see where you’re qualified in anyway to influence anyone on how this country should be run. I read the about section on your website and all it says is that you have given your opinion repeatedly and gotten some honorary degrees for that. Personally I choose to educate myself on the issues and vote my conscience rather than listening to someone who has absolutely no basis to be advocating for anyone. And frankly as an intelligent educated Christian woman the fact that you appeared on Fox news and Geraldo makes you a laughing stock in my life not someone to listen to. I do think you need to make it perfectly clear though that you do not speak for the church or its members but for your own self

  19. Pingback: “Miscellaneous Meanderings” (November 2016) | mlatkovic

  20. If any of y’all had bothered to run the demographics, Donald Trump is proposing to encapture, enslave, encamp, and eliminate 1 of every 9 Catholics in the United States.

    But, God forbid, professor, you “analysis” contains any data, numbers, or facts. Any data-driven analysis does not use the phrase “believe” 6 times as you did.

    Here’s a fact: You are voting for a child rapist who wants to decimate the church in the United States merely because you, without backing up your claim with a single shred of data, are upset with State Department email protocols from 2001-2012. Good job – that’s really intelligent, ma’am.

    • Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick on

      Trump is a “child rapist”? You expect to be taken seriously?

      The “Catholics” the bishops have been welcoming to the U.S. vote 70-80% pro-abortion. They should be deported.

Leave A Reply