Amazon Synod idols cast in River Tiber today

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see it too but how about another way of dealing with it instead of theft and vandalism?

Theft and vandalism are not the only options.
 
Aquinas11 said:
No, in the Summa , Aquinas gives several examples where taking is not stealing. For example, if someone has no food they are permitted to take food from another who has surplus of food since “all property becomes common property”
Click to expand...
Rubee said:
I was gonna make this point but let it go to avoid getting into a debate about theft.
Click to expand...
That is in case of urgent need, that is, to save a life. The Catechism also speaks in such circumstances of presumed consent of the owner; if the property owner knew of the urgent need, he would gladly give the food (or medicine, or shelter).

Do not confuse the appropriation of those statues with real cases of urgent need or presumed consent, or conflate it with the principle of the Universal Destination of Goods.
 
Or start a grassroots movement, a petition, one parish at a time?

Idols in church are a problem, so maybe start a dialogue starting with our concerns.
 
Sean said:
They are low down robbers, committing a crime deserving of prison.
Click to expand...
Not to mention it is God’s house and sooner or later he would take matters into his own hands. So the men did it for God
 
Babaganoush said:
So you support pagan idol worship in a Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
No, neither do I support begging the question, or loaded questions. There is, there was no pagan idol worship. There was, however, ignorant vandals who robbed the Church.
 
Beryllos said:
That is in case of urgent need, that is, to save a life. The Catechism also speaks in such circumstances of presumed consent of the owner; if the property owner knew of the urgent need, he would gladly give the food (or medicine, or shelter).

Do not confuse the appropriation of those statues with real cases of urgent need or presumed consent, or conflate it with the principle of the Universal Destination of Goods.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that’s the only exception? There was a time the church ordered the taking away of the property of heretics. Point is, private property is not an absolute value and can be superseded by more important values. We can disagree of course, on the exact way of deciding that.

PS: If the owner refuses, the starving person still has a right to the food.
 
Last edited:
Taking something that’s not yours is stealing.

Otherwise, I could break into someone’s house and steal his computer and claim that I am saving him from his addiction to pornography.

I don’t think the judge will take that as a valid excuse.
 
Sarcelle said:
Taking something that’s not yours is stealing.
Click to expand...
Not always. If I deny you food and you’re starving, taking it is not stealing according to our faith. Because my right to that food is not absolute, your need will give you a prior right.
 
Adamek said:
40.png
pnewton:
These vandals did not own the house or the property they stole. They are low down robbers, committing a crime deserving of prison.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that trolling was frowned upon on CAF.
Click to expand...
I have posted here for 14 years. They committed, objectively, the crime of robbery. It is no different had it been anti-Catholics who stole chalices or statuary and threw it in the river as there form of free speech.
 
Babaganoush said:
They robbed it of pagan idols.
Click to expand...
Again, begging the question. There has been a lot of debate as to what happened. Some people decided to act on their own version in a way that is decidedly illegal. It is by any objective standard, a sinful act. Yet they are being compared to Jesus, God made flesh, clearing his father’s house. These people were not divine, and they had no authority to act on behalf of Catholics. Yet Catholics today too often want to make themselves their own authority to act, in this case forcibly, as their own Pope.
 
Last edited:
I think that recording it was a little over the top that is my only critique.
 
gracepoole said:
40.png
Aquinas11:
If he did do it - he’d be accused of damaging image of traditionalists among Synod critics

If he calls for it to be done and didn’t do it - he’d be accused of hypocrisy

If he doesn’t call for it to be done at all, he’s ignoring Scripture.

What exactly should he have done?
Click to expand...
I’ll ask again: if he wanted it done and was in Rome himself, why didn’t he do it?
Click to expand...
My guess… he wanted an authorized member of the clergy to do it. That would have been A LOT better.
 
But we’re not talking about people stealing food.

It’s about people going into a Church, taking something and then filming themselves throwing it into a river.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top