Taking down a poster a sin?

[TOP]

I was addressing challenging to Catholic Church teaching.

That’s a very Christian & charitable reply and speaks volumes about you.

If you don’t want people in your zone, then don’t invite them into your zone on a public discussion board.

You can’t stop can you. Your uninvited then. Easy enough, anonymous computer user that I don’t agree with.

 

[jmcrae]

I mentioned this earlier, but I know it is His temple in the “God created everything and eveything belongs to God” sense. I thought the poster was referring to a legal document or deed that had Jesus’s name on it.

Well, there is also the fact that the Temple was created specifically for Him, whereas other things usually are not (other than a Church, etc.)

Clearly I could argue that nothing any of us owns belongs to us; it along belongs to God.

I’m still stuck with the mortgage.

It’d be interesting to see what would happen if you were to dedicate your house to God - maybe He would take on the mortgage; who can say?

 

[Mirdath]

There’s nothing “evil” about burning down a building.

If it’s your building, and you are not burning it down to commit insurance fraud, murder your family, or any of a bunch of other things. If it’s not your building, you are destroying someone else’s property without permission.

I’ll refer to my holocaust example: was it wrong for Christians to hide fugitives (Jews)? Were Christians sinning by this? They were, after all, disobeying the law, which some seem to think means sin no matter what. Let’s go to the Revolutionary War? Wrong to not remain bent to England? Like I said, exceptions are everywhere…the Church today makes them for everybody, why not people who value morality to the max?

The moral course of action is not necessarily the best or the wisest.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is absolutely amazing to me that we have over two hundred posts on such a minute matter. Must be true that Catholics can turn a mole hill into a mountain or a gnat into a camel.

 

[TOP]

BUMP

 

[He_Man]

If it’s your building, and you are not burning it down to commit insurance fraud, murder your family, or any of a bunch of other things. If it’s not your building, you are destroying someone else’s property without permission.

The moral course of action is not necessarily the best or the wisest.

Or the most legal, in this case.

 

[He_Man]

It is absolutely amazing to me that we have over two hundred posts on such a minute matter. Must be true that Catholics can turn a mole hill into a mountain or a gnat into a camel.

BUMP

The juxtaposition of these posts is classic

 

[He_Man]

It is absolutely amazing to me that we have over two hundred posts on such a minute matter. Must be true that Catholics can turn a mole hill into a mountain or a gnat into a camel.

Why amazing, when it becomes a discussion of whether or not breaking a law or rule equates to sin?

 

[latinmasslover]

The moral course of action is not necessarily the best or the wisest.

So would it be a sin or not? (I’m referring to the two examples).

Burning down a building that literally butchers children is a public service and very just. I’m not much for “grey areas” but there is truth to the statement that “not everything is black and white.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

You can’t stop can you.

Nether can you …
*

BUMP

… why fault someone for something that you yourself can not do?

Your uninvited then. Easy enough, anonymous computer user that I don’t agree with.

It’s not only me that you don’t agree with but the INFALLIBLE Catholic Church founded by the Son of God – specifically CCC1753 and according to the intro to the CCC, the Pope specifically states that the CCC is the authoritative source for Catholic norms.

 

[Mirdath]

So would it be a sin or not? (I’m referring to the two examples).

If we subscribe to Aquinas’ philosophy, then yes. Much good came of both, but that does not excuse the actions themselves.

Burning down a building that literally butchers children is a public service and very just. I’m not much for “grey areas” but there is truth to the statement that “not everything is black and white.”

Go thou and serve the public, then. Commit arson, rejoice in it, and inform the police. Are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[latinmasslover]

Go thou and serve the public, then. Commit arson, rejoice in it, and inform the police. Are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

Only a fool would confess a crime online to a perfect stranger.

 

[estesbob]

I ecall a couple years ago a professor at the University of Maryland led her class in taking down symbolic crosses put up as a protest against abortion. I and just about everybody in the pro-life movement was outraged by this. I was pleased when she was severely reprimanded by the school. It would appear from reading this thread that many in this group would think this was perfectly acceptable. That saddens me

 

[Mirdath]

Only a fool would confess a crime online to a perfect stranger.

If it’d be just and a public service and if you consider yourself a moral and just person, go do it – and make sure the government knows so they can commend you for your noble deeds! I don’t have to know; I didn’t say ‘inform me’.

 

[ChangingHeart]

I’m surprised no one whipped out the Acts 5:29 card, yet. Even so, I don’t think it would apply here. Maybe that’s why no one brought it up.

Now, it is obvious that we as Catholics are commanded not to have idols in our lives.

We are also commanded not to blaspheme.

We are furthermore commanded not to lead our brother into sin, or place any stumbling blocks in our brother’s way(and as John Lennon said, “You better recognize your brother is everyone you meet.”)

Now, all that being said, are we COMMANDED to tear down blasphemy, or that which would cause our brother to stumble, if it is NOT our own property, and we have, legally speaking, no personal rights towards it? Well, unless someone can find an official church document stating that we are COMMANDED to do such, then we are not allowed to use Acts 5:29 to justify breaking laws that would prevent us from doing that.

Now, back to the original situation. Would there be anything wrong with covering the poster up with another poster that said two words, the two most controversial two words in the entire English language, “Merry Christmas!!!” (Those are the most controversial two words. “My boyfriend” are the most obnoxious and annoying two words.) As long as the poster can be covered up without causing any damage to the poster, or to the wall by which it is placed upon, and that there furthermore are no laws against freedom of expression, then that may be the way around this whole ordeal.

Burning down abortion clinics will NOT stop the problem, nor will it likely save any lives. It will just make Christians look bad, and as a result, may even lead to MORE abortions. We need to get back to the heart of the matter and prevent women from getting into situations that would produce unwanted(by their mothers) children in the first place. That, however is another issue for another thread.

 

[He_Man]

I ecall a couple years ago a professor at the University of Maryland led her class in taking down symbolic crosses put up as a protest against abortion. I and just about everybody in the pro-life movement was outraged by this. I was pleased when she was severely reprimanded by the school. It would appear from reading this thread that many in this group would think this was perfectly acceptable. That saddens me

The difference is, as pro-life Catholics, we are right.

As a pro-death whatever, she’s wrong.

 

[Rach620]

Sir Knight,

I think that when we apply God’s commands and the precepts of the catechism to our modern understanding of ‘private property’ we run into the sorts of issues we have on this thread.

Have you read Aquinas on property? Basically, in the Christian understanding of the world, we must recognize that our right to possess private property originates in God, and is designed to maintain our material sustenance. The proper end of ownership of property is directed towards the common good–the support and sanctification of mankind.

So what I’m getting at here is that people don’t have a God-given right to ‘own’ property which works against the material support and **sanctification **of mankind.

Do I think that the ‘vigilante justice’ of the kind I participated in by ripping down a few signs in my dorm should be exercised against every immoral display in the world? No. But in the situations which I was presented with, I believe that removing something which could lead people far away from the Church and into sin is justified–because their sanctification matters more than leaving something hanging on the wall out of legalistic concerns for justice.

If your church was running a charitable event and spent money printing up signs to advertize it and placed those signs up all over town and someone took those signs down, would you not consider that stealing? Your church paid for those signes. It gave out money that could have been used for other things in the hope of advertizing an event but because someone took those signs down, your church no longer has the money, or the signs, nor is the event advertized. THAT IS STEALING!

There’s a difference. My church’s event wouldn’t lead someone to sin; by contributing to charities, it is contributing to the common good. The event I mentioned above which was being advertised would almost certainly lead someone to sin, or at least to a severely damaged understanding of the meaning of human sexuality.

First off, if it isn’t ANYONE’s property, then it isn’t your property either and you are not entitled to take it. By doing so, you are taking something that isn’t your’s. Secondly, some individual PAID money to advertize something with that poster. By taking it down, you have robbed that person of the opportunity to do so and that person isn’t getting what he paid for with his money. Again, theft.

Where do we have a God-given right to advertise? How is that bringing about the sanctification of souls?

My point is that it doesn’t matter if the person paid for it; they paid for something immoral. They only have the right to use money to acquire goods inasmuch as it makes them holy, allows them to materially exist, and contributes to the common good. It is not in God’s plan for us to use the goods we have been given for immoral purposes.

That is not YOUR decision to make unless you are running the place. If they received permission to put it up, YOU have no right to take it down.

The point is that it’s a corrupt/unjust decision. The play shouldn’t be here. The administration erred in allowing it. The Church does not teach that we have to sit back and always obey authority, even when their decisions are unjust and work against the common good.

I would inform the property owner. I would not STEAL something that wasn’t mine because STEALING is a sin and sins are offensive to God and Christ’s own church teaches that the REASON for sinning does NOT excuse the sin.

This is almost a Kantian way of approaching things. We are to live the truth in love, not merely follow a list of maxims. I’m all about objective truth, here–that’s why I care so much about vigorously defending the dignity of the human person and Catholic teaching on sexuality. ONE of the ways I do this is by removing offensive posters in public spaces.

 

[Rach620]

Yes, but as was pointed out twice above, the Temple belonged to Jesus. If someone comes in and sets up a GC vending booth in your living room, you would have a right to destroy it.

We are talking about destroying someone else’s private property (a poster) on private property.

Doesn’t the whole world belong to God?

 

[Rach620]

Maybe I didn’t make this clear – breaking a law that is LAWFUL. Taking something that isn’t your’s is stealing. Doing that is breaking a lawful law.

But are laws which protect private property that can lead one into sin LAWFUL?

Are laws which protect the private possession of pornography lawful?

Are campus policies which permit the publicizing and sponsoring of events antithetical to Catholicism–lawful?

I am arguing that they are not.

 

[TC2]

As the government is not Catholic run (or Baptist, or Methodist or…) I would say yes. And therefore must be followed.

Are they lawful according to the Word? Probably not.
I don’t like porn, and wish it didn’t exist. However, according to
the law, it is allowed, so long as it is consensual.
Again, forcing people to follow Catholic doctrine, or Christian morals (beyond stealing/murder/ect) only serves to drive them away from the Faith, not closer.

The best way to react? With the love in our hearts, not breaking the law to restrict others rights because we don’t agree.
No one in this movie was actually killed, no one forced to act in it. Don’t agree? Don’t see it. Want to respond? Create pro God displays, and let people choose for themselves.