Synopsis (tl;dr): Pro-life Catholics are not suckers for voting for Trump. A pragmatic case can be made for voting for him, in spite of his serious flaws. No such case can be made for Clinton. Voting for neither is also a good option.
Two Bad Candidates
We’ve finally reached it America: an election with two heinously awful candidates.
Yet these were the two candidates the American people chose. They are the products of our falling empire and crumbling civilization. Given this reality, some Catholic pundits are lambasting pro-lifers as suckers and fools for saying they will vote for Trump, and even claiming that a vote for Clinton is better.
I consider myself a Catholic pro-lifer and have fought for pro-life laws and hearts and minds ever since becoming Catholic fifteen years ago. I opposed and oppose Trump and think he would not be a good president, but I do think there’s a case to be made for him over Clinton.
Myth: Republicans Have Done Nothing for the Pro-life Movement But Pay Lip Service
I live in Texas and we have passed many pro-life laws over the past decade that have done tremendous good. Republicans have pushed those bills through and Republican governors have signed them into law.
Having good judges and Justices is vitally important. The most recent defeat at the Supreme Court of the excellent Texas law demonstrates how unjust and devastating liberal activist judges are.
Democrat Presidents appoint these liberal activist judges while Republicans (usually) appoint solid judges who interpret the Constitution and don’t legislate from the bench.
The pragmatic case: Clinton would certainly appoint liberal activist judges and Justices while Trump has said he would appoint strict constructionists.
Even if Trump goofs because he is clueless on such matters, we at least get a sporting chance at pro-life judges. With Clinton we get certain doom, sealing the Supreme Court for decades and speeding the demise of our country, along with countless unborn babies.
Clinton will continue Obama’s despicable efforts to turn the screws against Christians on religious liberty. The HHS mandate is just the beginning of what could be coming next if Clinton gets elected.
The one argument here against Trump is that he has said he would take action against religious liberty for Muslims (e.g. monitor and shut down mosques where terrorism is preached). Shutting down a place (any place, Muslim or Christian or secular) where terrorism and hatred are fomented could be a legitimate action. Forcing Christians to violate their conscience and punishing them if they don’t is never legitimate.
Trump has been having lots of conversions lately: he was pro-choice, now he’s pro-life (somewhat); he was pro-pornography and lust now he signs something saying he’ll fight against it.
I don’t believe his conversions. I find them paper thin and all too convenient. Let him show fruits of repentance for ten years and I’ll believe it.
Reformed Protestant professor Wayne Grudem and Catholic apologist Steve Ray are more sanguine than I am about Trump and his conversions. I don’t share their optimism. Grudem calls Trump “a good candidate with flaws” but I would call him a bad candidate with one or two positive points.
A Third Party Vote Helps Clinton
Many are saying this: “be a realist, not an idealist! Voting for a third-party is just like voting for Clinton!”
I disagree. When you are given two bad options it is legitimate to choose neither and vote for someone else.
Clinton is the most awful candidate I can imagine running for President. Under no circumstances would I ever vote for her, and I would encourage everyone to not vote for her. If she is elected she will do tremendous harm to our country.
Trump is a showman and playboy. He is not fit to be President. He supports evils like torture and is full of bombast. But he at least plans to have some good people around him and promises to make some good judicial appointments.
With eyes wide open, a pro-life Catholic can vote for Trump, in spite of his deep and grievous flaws.