Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 465 times)

Jr1991 · « **Reply #15 on:** **Today** at 04:41:56 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Today at 03:59:54 PM

In Thomistic moral theology, suspicion built on personal frustration or incomplete patterns does not justify imputing hidden motives or group control. One may critique public actions, but to speculate about secret influence without proportionate evidence crosses into rash judgment and violates justice and charity. Catholic reasoning demands objective proof, not conjecture drawn from moderation decisions or anecdotal impressions.

I don’t think that statement is quite right, at least not in the sweeping way it is presented. Yes, in Thomistic moral theology, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, rash judgment means deciding that someone is morally guilty without sufficient evidence. But that is not the same thing as noticing patterns or asking reasonable questions. Catholic moral reasoning does not require courtroom-level proof before someone can raise concerns. If the same decisions, outcomes, or ideological alignments appear repeatedly, it is not sinful to say that this looks coordinated or that something systematic may be happening. That is basic reasoning, not malice. There is also an important difference between analyzing patterns and accusing people of secret evil motives. Saying that a pattern suggests organized influence is not the same as declaring that certain individuals are plotting in bad faith. Thomistic ethics condemns unfounded moral condemnation, not careful inference drawn from observable facts. Justice and charity require fairness, but they do not require intellectual naivety or pretending that power structures never exist. Suspicion is not the same as certainty, and raising a hypothesis is not the same as asserting guilt. The real moral line is crossed when someone confidently imputes hidden motives without proportionate evidence, not when someone simply questions whether recurring patterns point to something deeper.

Jr1991 · « **Reply #16 on:** **Today** at 04:46:24 PM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on Today at 04:14:35 PM

personally, I don't think the remnant is DIRECTLY funded by the jews, but I suspect a large part of Matt's conservative Novus Ordo donor base are either zionist Trumpsters or EWTN-style Mother Miriam 'Holy Chosen" types and would be repelled by naming the jew for anything nefarious and call it an "anti-christian" act.- lol

Now Lifesite news was definately a diferent story in the past with pro-zionist articles, stating Catholics couldn't be antisemitic ( whatever that means), but now it seems, since the big shake-up a few months back re: removing JHW, things are progressingwith a much more honest depiction of the JQ and also of Tradition.Better guests , too.

I've noticed a similar change in LifeSite as well. They won't use the term "the Jews" but prefer "Zionists." At least they have definitely reduced the prevalence of the fake"ʝʊdɛօ-Christian values" that once permeated their site.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #17 on:** **Today** at 05:49:29 PM »

Quote from: Jr1991 on Today at 04:41:56 PM

I don’t think that statement is quite right, at least not in the sweeping way it is presented. Yes, in Thomistic moral theology, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, rash judgment means deciding that someone is morally guilty without sufficient evidence. But that is not the same thing as noticing patterns or asking reasonable questions. Catholic moral reasoning does not require courtroom-level proof before someone can raise concerns. If the same decisions, outcomes, or ideological alignments appear repeatedly, it is not sinful to say that this looks coordinated or that something systematic may be happening. That is basic reasoning, not malice. There is also an important difference between analyzing patterns and accusing people of secret evil motives. Saying that a pattern suggests organized influence is not the same as declaring that certain individuals are plotting in bad faith. Thomistic ethics condemns unfounded moral condemnation, not careful inference drawn from observable facts. Justice and charity require fairness, but they do not require intellectual naivety or pretending that power structures never exist. Suspicion is not the same as certainty, and raising a hypothesis is not the same as asserting guilt. The real moral line is crossed when someone confidently imputes hidden motives without proportionate evidence, not when someone simply questions whether recurring patterns point to something deeper.

Aquinas allows prudential suspicion about actions, but he explicitly warns against moving from patterns to imputing hidden coordination or moral fault without proportionate proof (ST II–II q.60). Noticing outcomes is one thing; suggesting secret influence tied to a people or group goes beyond observation into conjecture. Thomism demands restraint where evidence does not reach moral certitude.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #18 on:** **Today** at 05:56:07 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Today at 08:33:15 AM

Accusing Michael Matt of being controlled by Jews and then doubling down on it is stupid, honestly. That’s your focus? Meeting of the minds over here.

Get a grip, man and stop snowflaking ... and refrain from distorting and misrepresenting what was actually posted, eh? Speaking of "minds" ... do you need a refresher in reading comprehension? OP wasn't "accusing" but was wondering out loud, given that he gets banned / deleted every time he posts criticism of the Jews. Then ... where did he "double down"? Someone ELSE, aka I myself, simply chimed in that being critical of the Jews does not necessarily rule out the possibility that someone might be Jєωιѕн-controlled, because there are some who criticize Jews functionin in the role of gatekeepers who do exactly that. This was merely a statement of principle that criticzing Jews doesn't rule out being controlled by them. Jews perpetrate Anti-Semitic attacks on themselves all the time to fαℓѕє fℓαg someone else for it. But what I actually said was ... I don't know, but I do know that he's a shameless grifter. Everlast said the same thing that, being a grifter, he's likely motivated financially, where he doesn't want to risk getting deplatformed from his source of income and/or losing too much of his audience.

So perhaps before you come on here and slander posters by misrepresenting what they posted, and denouncing their "minds", you might do well to read what was actually said, slowly, before YOU make these demonstrably false accusations.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** **Today** at 06:02:08 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica on Today at 08:52:25 AM

In Thomistic terms (Summa Theolgiae II-II. q.60):

Judgement itself is not evil. We must judge actions using reason.

The sin happens when someone judges interior guilt or motives without adequate grounds.

Then you double down after distorting what people actually posted by some santimonious gaslighting and misapplying St. Thomas.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 465 times)

Jr1991

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Jr1991

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Centroamerica

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Ladislaus

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Ladislaus

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?