Not sure.  I imagine the Apostles felt the same way during Our Lord's Passion.  Do you honestly think there's hope if, say, Trump gets elected?  I don't.  I think he's also controlled, and if the select him, they have a reason for it.  Sometimes God does and will put people into situations where there's no natural hope left, leaving us only with the bare, raw supernatural hope to cling to ... analogous to a dark night of the soul, except it's for all of society instead of just an individual.

Indeed, I see things as finished and hopeless, naturally speaking.  And sometimes it's only then that we realize how much we need God, where we hit rock bottom and can no longer rely upon ourselves but acknowledge our helplessness and seek God's help.

I think it's getting to the point of being as bad as in the "Days of Noah", and it might be nearing the time when we just have to scamper to the safety of the ark while God cleans up the mess.

I think there are good points there, but Noe didn't enter the ark until the floodwaters were rising; he stayed in civilization until the last moment. While it's bad in the world, and deteriorating, I think there's still work to be done. If the trads cry "all is lost", who else is left?

Many times in life one has to keep going even when there is no hope of success. It's called duty. I say let God decide when the game is over, not anyone else.

"All is lost"? Imagine if Archbishop Lefebvre had said that in the 1970s. Thank goodness His Excellency didn't and instead took the heroic step he took which has enabled Catholic Tradition to flourish and grow these last 55 years. There were "doomsday preachers" in the 70s too, not only Prots, but even Trads, who believed "all is lost" and it would all end in 5 or 10 years or so. That's been empirically falsified now. 55 years later, here we still are. Who is to say things can't continue for another 10 or 20 years or more? In fact, Our Lady has promised us the triumph of her Immaculate Heart. Obviously, abortion will not exist/be abolished by the time that happens. That means we must pray and work/push for more and more pro life candidates and pro life policies with the end goal of abortion abolition

Nowhere does Fr. Scott say it would be a mortal sin to vote; in fact, he says the opposite. There are people here alleging it would be a mortal sin to vote for Trump.

No, he doesn't.  I think he is saying the same things that the moral theologians say when considering two unworthy candidates:  permissible, but not obligatory. So, yes, people can vote, or they can abstain.

I think the OP was a response to Vigano's recent comments that say it is obligatory to vote for Trump.

Here is a summary of Fr Scott's article from the SSPX website, posted in 2020:
https://sspx.org/en/news/catholic-morally-obligated-vote-lesser-two-evils-24855

Summarized:

• Pope Pius XII decreed that there is a moral imperative (duty) for Catholics to vote in elections.
• In the United States, our choices are no longer between Catholic and non-Catholic.
• In practice, it generally comes down to the question of whether or not it is obligatory or permissible to vote for a "lesser of two evils"
• In such a case, there can be no obligation to vote, for all the reasons mentioned by Pope Pius XII below no longer apply.
• it is permissible to vote in such a case, provided that one can be sure that there truly is a lesser evil, and that there is a grave reason to do so,

There is also another article presented there which was also from the 2007 Angelus but no author is specified:



Summarized:

• It is sinful for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who claims to be Catholic, but who is not Pro-Life (abortion, euthanasia, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions)
• However, Catholics are not morally obliged, in any way, to vote for the opponent of the above candidate.
• Catholics are only required to vote for candidates who are solidly Catholic

Article:
The Catholic Church does not tell Catholics to avoid all involvement in politics simply because there is injustice, greed, ambition, just to mention some of the evils involved. The Church teaches us that all our involvement in politics ought to be motivated, inspired, and directed by the Church’s social teachings, and in particular by the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Voting, as well as involvement in political campaigns, must have as its ultimate motive these higher, supernatural principles, that the law of God, the Ten Commandments, and the rights of the one true Church be acknowledged publicly in society.

Manifestly, we are presently very far removed from achieving these aims. It does not mean that we should do nothing. It does mean, however, that whatever we do will necessarily involve the toleration of many evils, which we in no way desire or will. However, it can be permissible to tolerate the lesser of two evils for a proportionate reason, and such toleration can be for the common good, precisely because it is the lesser of two evils. Thus, it is possible to vote or even campaign for a candidate whose platform contains evils with which we do not agree. Everything depends upon a hierarchy of the most important values and issues taking priority over lesser ones.

For a Catholic, there can be no doubt that the issues that take the highest priority must be the moral issues, and not personal or economic issues. The whole continuation of society as we know it depends upon this, and those who deny the most basic principles of the natural order are bringing about an unheard of perversion. Consequently, it is permissible and prudent to vote on the one single issue of proscribing abortion, or forbidding same-sex marriages, or putting an end to euthanasia, or freedom of the Catholic Church to run educational institutions. All of these issues are of the utmost importance. Consequently, it would be permissible and prudent to vote for a candidate who promotes an unjust war, on the basis of one or other of these issues. Consequently, it is likewise permissible to vote for a candidate who is known to be a Freemason, although Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is an evil society condemned by the Church and opposed to the Catholic Church, if he maintains an important principle of the natural law such as the evil of abortion.

Lesser issues are also of moral importance, such as the justice or injustice of a particular war, or the paying of a just wage to employees, maintaining the right to private property by limiting government intervention, and so on. All other things being equal, one could vote on the basis of such issues. However, it would be wrong to vote for a candidate who has a correct position on one of these issues, but a perverse and wrong position on a more important issue.

Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gαy, or pro-euthanasia.

Voting in local and national elections can only be considered a moral obligation when the candidates propose a solidly Catholic, non-liberal platform that truly promotes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not obligatory to vote for a lesser evil, but simply prudent and permissible. However, it would certainly be obligatory to use the democratic process in place in the unlikely event that it could be used to introduce Catholic candidates who do not accept the propaganda of modern liberal democracy.

What would happen if all American Traditionalists don't vote on a presidential election? How many are them? Would it make any difference in the result?

.. MATHIMATICALLY its pretty much zero.

Then abstaining is obviously the better choice.

Even the Theologians who say that people can vote in such a situation don't consider it to be an obligation.

The election is very likely a scam, and, even if it were not, your votes would be insignificant. Why bother voting anyway?

Quote from: Michelle 2024-11-06, 12:46:38 PM
Consequently, it would be manifestly immoral and sinful to vote for a candidate who pretends to be Catholic, but who in fact is pro-abortion, pro-gαy, or pro-euthanasia.

Trump pretends to be "christian".  He is pro-abortion and pro-gαy. 
How are you rationalizing Trump as the lesser of two evils?

Most “traditionalists” here won’t acknowledge that Bishop Williamson has compromised with Vatican II, the new Mass, and its “miracles.” Consequently, they’ll find it difficult to see that choosing the “lesser of two evils” is not a Catholic principle.

Sounds like voting for the "lesser of two evils" is LITERALLY Catholic doctrine.

Father Scott's use of the word "tolerate" is significant.  Such a vote is not choosing a lesser evil, but tolerating it.  Catholics may not vote for evil (lesser or otherwise) in the sense of willing the evil.  We may, however, vote against a great evil while recognizing it will have the unintended side effect of permitting a lesser evil.  

While this may sound like mere semantics, the way we phrase it actually matters because we need to be consistent with Catholic moral principles.  I do agree with your reasoning for voting for Trump and share your assumption that hαɾɾιs as president would be a great evil.  But it is genuinely problematic to describe your decision as voting for the lesser of two evils.  It is an expression that is open to misinterpretation in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching even though you obviously do not intend it that way.