Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 917 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** **Yesterday** at 01:42:50 PM »

Quote from: Twice dyed on Yesterday at 01:32:37 PM

Dear Centroamerica, great explanation , said charitably I will add.

One day I heard +Williamson talk about judging others. He cleared my misconceptions with one word : DISCERNMENT.

And stop appealing to Bishop Williamson, since he'd puke at this effeminate nonsense. Bishop Williamson was on a practical crused to denounce the very sentiments in this post, the fake "cha-wity" that he constantly mocked, and yet you appeal to him somehow, as if by throwing his name out there he would back you up.

Bishop Williamson has a very famous little segment in which he mocks those who appeal to "cha-wity" and "nithe-ness" -- "Oh, why won't you be nithe to me? Don't you like me." Bishop Williamson: "No! I DESPISE you!"

Matt is to be despised. Period. Stop with this emetic effeminacy, the both of you.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #41 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:03:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 01:37:29 PM

He's characterizing this as if we were just making up random names and insults as kids do on the playground.

I stand by my judgment and opine, obviously without absolute certainty that Michael Matt is a "shamless grifter".

And if I'm wrong, no harm done, since Matt has zero right to any benfits of the doubt, since he's doing grave damage to souls. HE put himself in the position of being an "influencer" and a public figure ... to be well know in order to rake in revenue, so when he has a PERNICIOUS influence, whatever backlash he gets is one him, since he entered hte public arena.

When I make posts here, I'm not snowflaking like some souther belle ("oh, I do declare") when someone attacks me for a post. What did I expect? I put myself into this arena, and so I should expect it.

If I walked into the East Side of Cleveland and started yelling the N-word, if I got my ass kicked or worse, I shouldn't be suprised by the consequences.

That's the tradeoff for Matt, that he poses as "influencer" and that inherently requires being a public figure, then he's got to deal with cricism. On top of everything else, there's something eminently un-masculine and effeminate about this snowflaking about Matt, when Matt's the one who put himself out there.

Lad,

You’re building an entire “moral theology” out of loopholes, slogans, and street-logic, and then calling it discernment. It isn’t. In Thomism, the morality of speech is not solved by saying “I’m not absolutely certain,” or “everyone knows I’m speculating,” or “it’s common language,” or “he’s a public figure.” None of that changes the object of the act. Words signify. And what you are doing is not merely judging public acts; you are imputing vice, motive, and culpable malice while granting yourself a moral blank check to do it publicly.

“Shameless grifter” is not a neutral description of “behavior.” It is a moral verdict: that the man exploits others for gain, knowingly, and without shame. “Shameless” is interior; “grifter” is interior; together they are not a report of an external act but a claim about character and motive. Aquinas is explicit that rash judgment is precisely forming an evil opinion of another without sufficient cause. Dressing it up as “informal language” doesn’t change what you are asserting. If you mean to criticize a specific act, then name the act and argue it. When you reach for vice-terms, you are no longer analyzing; you are condemning the man.

Your “no harm done if I’m wrong” line is flatly anti-Catholic. In Thomistic and Catholic moral theology, harm is done the moment you unjustly damage a reputation, because a man’s good name is a matter of justice. A later disclaimer does not erase the injury. You don’t get to take a sledgehammer to someone’s name and then pretend there’s no sin because you said “not with absolute certainty.” That’s not how justice works. And “he has zero right to any benefit of the doubt” is the opposite of the Christian rule: charity inclines us to interpret ambiguous evidence favorably, not to treat suspicion as a right and restraint as weakness.

Your claim that public influence makes it “permitted” or even “obligated” to speculate “far and wide” about “impure and dishonest motives” is also not Thomism. A good end does not authorize unjust means. Even when warning is legitimate, the rule is proportionate evidence, necessary audience, and least harmful means. You are defending the inverse: maximal audience, minimal evidence, maximal insinuation. That isn’t “protecting souls.” It’s cultivating a habit of suspicion and calling it virtue. Thomism calls that vice, because it breaks justice and trains the will toward contempt.

Your misuse of “discernment” is telling. Discernment is not permission to indulge contempt, sneering, and name-calling; it is prudence governed by charity and truth. When you mock people as “half-wits,” tell others to stop posting, boast about “mansplaining,” and try to win by humiliation, you are not practicing Thomistic prudence; you are indulging a passion and baptizing it with pious vocabulary. Aquinas is not a patron saint of rhetorical cruelty. He is a doctor of justice and charity.

Your repeated resort to crude, degrading rhetoric about disabilities and sɛҳuąƖity is not a side issue; it’s a moral self-exposure. Thomism condemns injurious speech and contempt because it violates charity and justice toward the neighbor. You can’t preach “moral theology” while using degrading labels as weapons. That contradiction alone shows this is not “discernment” but a temper wearing theology as a costume.

Your analogies are also a mess. You keep reaching for violent criminals, racial provocation, and predation scenarios to justify public insinuation against a journalist. That’s not reasoning; it’s emotional coercion. It tries to drag the reader’s gut into granting you moral permission to smear. Thomism rejects that. If you believe a public claim is false or harmful, refute the claim. If you believe a public action is unjust, prove it. But you do not get to leap from “I dislike his influence” to “therefore he is a grifter” and then to “therefore he has no right to a good name” and then to “therefore no harm if I’m wrong.” That chain is precisely what Catholic moral theology forbids.

And the “internal forum” detour doesn’t save you. Nobody is claiming humans can never infer anything. The point is the one you keep evading: inferring “he deleted a comment” is one thing; asserting “he is driven by dishonest, impure motives and financial manipulation” is another. That second move requires proportionate evidence, not vibes, not a pattern you prefer, not “everyone knows,” not “public figure,” not “I’m not literally claiming certainty.” If you cannot supply that evidence, then Thomism commands restraint, not escalation.

So the bottom line, in pure Thomistic terms, is simple. Criticize statements. Refute errors. Prove acts. But stop pretending that insinuation is analysis, contempt is courage, and speculative vice-labels are “just describing behavior.” Catholic truth requires justice in speech, and justice is not satisfied by disclaimers after the fact. If you want to be taken seriously as someone invoking Aquinas, then speak like someone governed by Aquinas: precise claims, proportionate evidence, and charity that refuses to turn suspicion into a pastime.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #42 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:15:18 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 12:49:12 PM

All criticisms are based on external behavior. No one (except autist people) actually think it’s possible to judge/know someone’s thoughts.

A “shameless grifter” is a great description of his behavior. No one can know if he actually is and all normal people don’t speak as if they could know. All name calling is based on behavior.

Pax,

Your first line is false as a matter of basic moral philosophy: not all criticism is “based on external behavior” in the morally relevant sense. A great deal of “criticism” consists in imputing interior vice under the cover of describing behavior. Thomism distinguishes judging an act from judging a man, and you are erasing that distinction.

Second, your “no one can know thoughts” slogan is a distraction. Aquinas does not require omniscience to condemn rash judgment; he condemns it precisely because men are tempted to overreach beyond what evidence warrants (ST II–II q.60). The question is not whether we can read minds. The question is whether your words assert more than you can justly know. They do.

Third, calling someone a “shameless grifter” is not a “description of behavior.” It is a compound moral imputation. “Grifter” signifies deliberate exploitation for gain; “shameless” signifies an interior habit, i.e., a settled vice. Those are claims about motive and character, not merely about external acts. If you mean “he deleted comments,” say that. If you mean “I dislike his editorial policy,” say that. But once you choose vice-terms, you have moved from analyzing acts to pronouncing on the man. That is exactly the kind of judgment Aquinas warns against when the cause is insufficient.

Fourth, your escape hatch: “nobody speaks as if they could know, it’s common language”. That doesn’t work in Thomism. The morality of speech is specified by its object: what is asserted and signified. If your “common language” asserts injustice (by imputing dishonesty and vice without proportionate proof) then it is unjust speech. You don’t get moral immunity by adding “not literally” after you’ve already communicated the accusation.

Finally, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you want to call a man a grifter, you must present proportionate evidence that he is acting from financial exploitation rather than error, prudence, mistaken judgment, or any number of other explanations. Otherwise you are not doing “discernment.” You are doing what Aquinas calls judging from light indications and suspicion (rash judgment) because you prefer a darker interpretation when the evidence does not compel it (ST II–II q.60).

So the Thomistic point stands: criticize public acts and refute public claims. But do not pretend that vice-labels are “just behavior descriptions.” They are moral accusations, and without proportionate evidence, they are the very thing Aquinas condemns.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #43 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:20:25 PM »

Ok, i'll recant my statement and make a correction.

CORRECTION: "Mr Matt acts like a shameless grifter. Not sure, but that's what everyone says."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:23:43 PM »

Matt is a shameless grifter.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews? (Read 917 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Centroamerica

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Centroamerica

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?

Ladislaus

Re: Is the Remnant Newspaper run by Jews?