OK to remove poster from public bulletin board you disagree with, or not?

[Pug]

Error has no rights.

When you speak about error here, in what aspect and relative to people how? Error is not a person, so I don’t immediately know in what manner you reference it to rights. It is usually people that I have in mind when discussing rights.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

I have removed an offensive poster myself. It was a large advert for the morning after pill. It said something along the lines of “after you get it on, you’ve got 72 hours to get it”, or something like that.
This was on the toilet wall in the ante-natal ward, where I was being treated for an infection, and worried about premature labour.
It was not only highly offensive, and presumably too late for these women, but it was full of the light hearted propaganda that this pill is just like a sweet or something. While I could feel my little baby kicking in my womb, I was being targeted with an advert which could kill a baby.
Incidentally, when I leave tracts or put up a poster, in the back of my mind I assume that someone will tear it up.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is a good discussion here but it is off topic, I may bring this to its own thread. I am intrigued by the scenario at this point.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

All of you seem to have this bug about being “fair” even if what you are doing would be morally acceptable. So let me pose this situation to all of you.

There you are, newly ordained hospital chaplain, working in the hospital when suddenly a mother gives birth to a very ill child. The child is most likely going to die. The parents are Orthodox Jews. Do you baptize the child even though the parents would object?

 

[mosher]

So likewise, I will permit abortion advertisements (I don’t go around hunting for them to tear them down) without actively willing that such advertisements exist (and, as that will could be efficacious, I will decide not to hang up abortion posters).

Instead, in accord with my will to stop abortions, I will operate within the law to do so. No firebombing abortion clinics for me.

Silly. God acts as such by His permissive will because He is both the Final and Efficient cause of all things. You or I are not the Efficient cause of abortion advertisements and thus have an obligation to work against them by any moral means not just legal means.

 

[mosher]

When you speak about error here, in what aspect and relative to people how? Error is not a person, so I don’t immediately know in what manner you reference it to rights. It is usually people that I have in mind when discussing rights.

The posted note or letter or whatever has no right to exist if it is contrary to the natural moral law or Divine Decree or licit positive law. This is the whole point that I am making which is lost on those who come from American societies and are blinded by nationalism over the demands of the Church. The person who posted the notice is irrelevant to the discussion except that his feelings may be hurt. What matters is the object of the notice which either has a right to exist or does not have a right to exist. If it is in error then it has not the right to exist.

 

[Liberalsaved]

You people are so worried about offending people or being fair in the secular scheme of things that you are sacrificing your morals. You’re worried that baptizing the baby of non-christians will offend the parents when you SHOULD be concerned about the salvation of the dying child.

What if the parents are Wiccan? Should you, as a Catholic Priest, be performing a Wiccan Ceremony because that is what the parents would want? You, as a priest, would be responsible for saving souls. If you want to deny that Priests, no, all Catholics are responsible for the salvation of souls, then you’ve got more issues than can be addressed on a discussion board. But if you would choose your JOB at a hospital over the spiritual well-being of a dying child, you truly do sicken me.

I think what is being said is that performing a ceremony on the baby that the parents do NOT want is not right. A Catholic Priest has no right to do anything to a baby not approved by the parents, NOR any right to perform any ceremonies that do not fall under his duties.

If someone baptized my child against my will, I’m pretty sure I’d never speak to them again. If you have entrusted someone with the care of your child, and entrusted they will not overstep their bounds, and they do, they have betrayed your trust in a major way.

It’s also immoral to have done this against the will of the parents, because one can assume that if they have care of the baby, they intended to do this and either lied or simply didn’t mention it to the parents.

 

[Pug]

The posted note or letter or whatever has no right to exist if it is contrary to the natural moral law or Divine Decree or licit positive law.

But otherwise it does? I doubt you mean that, and this is not my main confusion, but just in case.

The person who posted the notice is irrelevant to the discussion except that his feelings may be hurt.What matters is the object of the notice which either has a right to exist or does not have a right to exist. If it is in error then it has not the right to exist.

Consider a Mormon communal worship gathering (in error, Trinity). I’m thinking possibly you are saying this would have no right to exist (I assume this is shorthand for the people involved have no right to gather to behave thusly). So, any advertisement of the meeting could be shredded with impunity, because the advertisement relates to something that isn’t supported by a right. Just on a public board, or anywhere? Would it matter if a legitimate human government legally protected the advertisement?

How does this relate to this quote from Vat2, which needs to be read with the whole document, but it gives the flavor of how I understand it:
Dignitatis Humanae 4:

The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself. Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship…

Also, this may be relevant, bold added.
DH1:

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

Thus speaks Vat2 of its own self. This may be the crux. Anyway, when I read all of DH, it sounds like they might mean that the person who posts the flyer and/or the community it is posted in and/or the group mentioned on the flyer do have rights, and the rights of the latter seem to not be abrogated merely on account of the religion in question. However, the rights are limited by civil order or something.

I don’t think DH means error has rights; I think they mean people have rights. I doubt they are only talking from the perspective of the State, and not what you or I must do or respect, which is why I went with leaving the flyer in place in my earlier post. Rather, I would more expect the American way of thinking to do that. I might guess the American legal way to look at it might be that the State couldn’t rip it down and who cares about what I do to a three cent piece of paper on a kiosk, unless I proceed to wad it up and dump it by a public highway. Of course, if I dump religious trash on someone’s front stoop, that is okay. (It bugs me because it inevitably blows all over the neighborhood by the time anyone gets home from work).

This is the whole point that I am making which is lost on those who come from American societies and are blinded by nationalism over the demands of the Church.

Your suggestion may be true that because I am a United States citizen, I am misunderstanding DH. I don’t accept the idea that I am putting nationalism over Church. I am deliberately trying to follow the Church, not the principles of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Sailboat]

But otherwise it does? I doubt you mean that, and this is not my main confusion, but just in case.

Consider a Mormon communal worship gathering (in error, Trinity). I’m thinking possibly you are saying this would have no right to exist (I assume this is shorthand for the people involved have no right to gather to behave thusly). So, any advertisement of the meeting could be shredded with impunity, because the advertisement relates to something that isn’t supported by a right. Just on a public board, or anywhere? Would it matter if a legitimate human government legally protected the advertisement?

How does this relate to this quote from Vat2, which needs to be read with the whole document, but it gives the flavor of how I understand it:

Also, this may be relevant, bold added.

Thus speaks Vat2 of its own self. This may be the crux. Anyway, when I read all of DH, it sounds like they might mean that the person who posts the flyer and/or the community it is posted in and/or the group mentioned on the flyer do have rights, and the rights of the latter seem to not be abrogated merely on account of the religion in question. However, the rights are limited by civil order or something.

I don’t think DH means error has rights; I think they mean people have rights. I doubt they are only talking from the perspective of the State, and not what you or I must do or respect, which is why I went with leaving the flyer in place in my earlier post. Rather, I would more expect the American way of thinking to do that. I might guess the American legal way to look at it might be that the State couldn’t rip it down and who cares about what I do to a three cent piece of paper on a kiosk, unless I proceed to wad it up and dump it by a public highway. Of course, if I dump religious trash on someone’s front stoop, that is okay. (It bugs me because it inevitably blows all over the neighborhood by the time anyone gets home from work).

Your suggestion may be true that because I am a United States citizen, I am misunderstanding DH. I don’t accept the idea that I am putting nationalism over Church. I am deliberately trying to follow the Church, not the principles of the Bill of Rights.

Wow Pug, you’re prety smart! I agree, I think religious flyers, or any flyer, left on my door are obnoxious. I think property owners and renters should have rights not to have that happen. I also don’t like flyers left on my windshield. It’s like making trash for me to deal with, I hate it.

 

[Pug]

It’s like making trash for me to deal with

You understand perfectly. Just for you, I will try to learn the new feature with the sign.

[sign]Sailboat is insightful and empathic![/sign]

Huh. That little guy holding the sign is supposed to look enthusiastic, but I think he looks rather belligerent. Anyway, I had a friend suggest that it might be illegal for them to dump the flyers if I posted a sign, oh man, can’t resist…

[sign]no solicitors[/sign]

…but I’ve seen the two guys sweep simultaneously down both sides of the street (across the lawns) with bags that look like they are for mailmen. They are obviously hired to produce rapid, total coverage. There is no way they give a hoot about a sign.

 

[Sailboat]

[SIGN]You are so kind, Pug![/SIGN]

 

[mosher]

But otherwise it does? I doubt you mean that, and this is not my main confusion, but just in case.

Consider a Mormon communal worship gathering (in error, Trinity). I’m thinking possibly you are saying this would have no right to exist (I assume this is shorthand for the people involved have no right to gather to behave thusly). So, any advertisement of the meeting could be shredded with impunity, because the advertisement relates to something that isn’t supported by a right. Just on a public board, or anywhere? Would it matter if a legitimate human government legally protected the advertisement?

How does this relate to this quote from Vat2, which needs to be read with the whole document, but it gives the flavor of how I understand it:

Also, this may be relevant, bold added.

Thus speaks Vat2 of its own self. This may be the crux. Anyway, when I read all of DH, it sounds like they might mean that the person who posts the flyer and/or the community it is posted in and/or the group mentioned on the flyer do have rights, and the rights of the latter seem to not be abrogated merely on account of the religion in question. However, the rights are limited by civil order or something.

I don’t think DH means error has rights; I think they mean people have rights. I doubt they are only talking from the perspective of the State, and not what you or I must do or respect, which is why I went with leaving the flyer in place in my earlier post. Rather, I would more expect the American way of thinking to do that. I might guess the American legal way to look at it might be that the State couldn’t rip it down and who cares about what I do to a three cent piece of paper on a kiosk, unless I proceed to wad it up and dump it by a public highway. Of course, if I dump religious trash on someone’s front stoop, that is okay. (It bugs me because it inevitably blows all over the neighborhood by the time anyone gets home from work).

Your suggestion may be true that because I am a United States citizen, I am misunderstanding DH. I don’t accept the idea that I am putting nationalism over Church. I am deliberately trying to follow the Church, not the principles of the Bill of Rights.

No, a mormon communal worship does not in itself have a right to exist. The proscription for the case of religious freedom is only an allowance in non-Catholic countries. If you read the current Holy Father’s commentary on these documents that deal with religious freedom the true sense of the meaning comes out. A Catholic government needs not grant allowance for other religious practitioners the right to their religion but a secular government must provide for the freedom to worship provided that the form of worship is not a grave harm to the society (i.e. human sacrifice). I would suggest getting or finding a copy of the Vorgrimler commentaries to get a deeper understanding of Religious Freedom.

As a result the letter posted does not in itself have a right to exist but can be allowed to exist for the sake of the Church. This is part of what Leo XIII spoke about when he said that error can never be approved of but it can be tolerated for the sake of the Church.

 

[Pug]

If you read the current Holy Father’s commentary on these documents that deal with religious freedom the true sense of the meaning comes out. A Catholic government needs not grant allowance for other religious practitioners

I hadn’t considered the question from the perspective of a Catholic state (there are so few these days). What is the title of this Ratzinger commentery you refer to? The Vorgrimler is outside my access for now.

but can be allowed to exist for the sake of the Church.

Yes, that is similar to what I was getting at in an earlier post of mine on this thread with my choice of quote.

For anyone who is interested, I found an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles on the topic of religious freedom and the changes.

 

[mosher]

I hadn’t considered the question from the perspective of a Catholic state (there are so few these days). What is the title of this Ratzinger commentery you refer to? The Vorgrimler is outside my access for now.

Yes, that is similar to what I was getting at in an earlier post of mine on this thread with my choice of quote.

For anyone who is interested, I found an article by Avery Cardinal Dulles on the topic of religious freedom and the changes.

It does not have a title but is part of the commentary. The commentary is set up as nearly one book per document with the debates on the document and then a commentary on the document by one of the principle authors.

And the point that I was making (on your second quote) was that it has no right in itself but it can be allowed if such allowance is desired.

 

[bquinnan]

I’m pretty sure that disobeying civil law in these cases was so the Jews could fullfill their religious observances, not just to anonymously rip down someone else’s posters. There’s nothing noble about tearing down a poster when no one is looking. If someone really cares about others, then they’ll reach out to them in a meaningful way.

Ripping down someone’s poster is hardly evangelism in any meaningful way.

There are moral obligations that are not religious, however, such as helping those in need. Helping prevent someone from being harmed by tearing down a poster seems perfectly noble to me.