Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 489 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #25 on:** **Today** at 06:10:50 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 06:02:08 PM

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

Lad,
You’re conflating two different things Aquinas carefully distinguishes. Yes, we must judge actions using reason. But calling someone a “shameless grifter” is not a judgment of external acts; it is a claim about interior motive, habitual vice, and moral intent. That is precisely the category Aquinas warns against when he condemns rash judgment (ST II–II q.60), because it asserts knowledge of what cannot be directly seen.

Pointing to moderation decisions, perceived patterns, or ideological disagreement does not constitute proportionate evidence of hidden manipulation or lack of shame. Thomism does not grant a license to dress conjecture up as moral certainty simply because the target is public or controversial. If anything, Aquinas insists that where evidence is ambiguous, charity requires interpreting another’s intent in the more favorable sense.

So no, this is not “gaslighting” or a misapplication of St. Thomas. It is simply applying the distinction he himself makes: critique arguments all day, but once you begin assigning secret motives or declaring a man morally corrupt, you’ve stepped beyond rational judgment into speculation. That line exists for a reason.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** **Today** at 06:13:21 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.

Right ... I think that pretty much everyone agreed that he's only INDIRECTLY influenced by them, since they could deplatform him, shadow ban him ... aka, threaten his livelihood, where he lives large and travels the globe, and believe that he's earned a free trip to Rome, Brazil, and many parts of the world for merely recording a 3-minute rant ehilr holfing a selfie stick in front of him while not even bothering to dignitfy the "broadcast" by stopping, as he doesn't want to be late for his fettucini alfredo dinner. I recall his useless reports from Rome that did nothing but regurgitate everything that was publicly known already.

Where Matt showed his true colors and his stink was when he cancelled Archbishop Vigano when he wanted to come out as a sedevacantist during his "Clans" Meeting.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #27 on:** **Today** at 06:13:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 06:08:51 PM

As you presume guilty, malicious, and morally defective those posters who did absolutely nothing like what you accuse them.

Matt engages in certain behavior in public, i.e. banning people for making comments criticizing the Jews. OP solicits opinions about whether he might not be controlled by the Jews ... and in no way makes ANY "accusations" and "presumption of guilty or malice", but was merely asking the question and speculating. At no point were there accusations, at no point did anyone "presume guilt", or "malice" ... except when YOU FALSELY ACCUSED OP and several other posters of making accusations and presuming guilt, and judging them to be malicious. If you can't see the hypocrisy of that, then that's really sad.

Are you dating Michael Matt or something? [Obviously sarcastic ... lest you accuse me of accusing you of being sodomite, given your weak comprehension skills] ... meaning that you seem inordinately "triggered" by some very gentle speculation about a public figure.

Once the discussion moves from arguments to personal insinuations, it stops being about reason and starts revealing the weakness of the position itself. In Thomistic moral theology, the issue is simple: speculation that links a man to hidden control or interior corruption still concerns motive, even if phrased as ‘just asking questions.’ Aquinas explicitly warns that suspicion becomes unjust when it exceeds proportionate evidence or imputes concealed intent (ST II–II q.60).

Critique of public actions is legitimate; assigning secret influence or ridiculing interlocutors is not. Resorting to sarcasm and personal remarks doesn’t strengthen an argument, it only confirms that charity and intellectual restraint have been set aside.

songbird · « **Reply #28 on:** **Today** at 06:14:20 PM »

If it be true, that Michael Matt, is insult, he is then new order. New Order institutes are restructured. All new order institutes are now are referred to as Civil Society Organizations and they answer to the United Nations. Michael Matt maybe newspaper, BUT, he knows who he answers to. I have noticed Mel Gibson giving to Coalition for Cancelled and Priest and they are not the only ones. And don't forget, was it not KRAH who gave $$$ to the VA seminary?

songbird · « **Reply #29 on:** **Today** at 06:14:51 PM »

Michael Matt is indult.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 489 times)

Centroamerica

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Ladislaus

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Centroamerica

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

songbird

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

songbird

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?