K
kage_ar
Guest
The opposite of Pro is Anti.
Something is either pro- or anti-.
Anti as a prepostion means Opposed to or against. Contrary to.
The themes I mentioned above are all against or contrary to Christian teachings/actions.
- Status
Something is either pro- or anti-.
Anti as a prepostion means Opposed to or against. Contrary to.
The themes I mentioned above are all against or contrary to Christian teachings/actions.
M
MH84
Guest
what about sand, butterflies, cobwebs…are they pro-Christian or anti-Christian? I would think that they are non-Christian items
F
francesco920
Guest
I see nothing morally wrong is tearing something down that promotes evil, but I am not sure if it is the smartest thing to do unless all other methods have been pursued. First, explain why you are offended and ask that it be taken down. Perhaps get a few people to join you. If that doesn’t work then I’d say tear it down.
Actually, nobody has the right to own things which are evil and nobody has the right to promote evil. Destroying somebody else’s property isn’t wrong if that property is a slaughter house. Nobody has the right to own and operate a slaughter house. At least, that’s my understanding.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Things are not good or evil. How they are USED determines good or evil but the object itself can never be good or evil.
K
kage_ar
Guest
They are part of God’s creation, and reveal His glory. Off topic.
Christ said, those who are not for us are against us AND those who are not against us are for us.
My point, fiction and drama is based on the actions/thoughts of characters and there must be underlying morals/ethics. If we get too wound around the axles about one movie that has morals cotrary to Christianity, we should be equally upset about all of them.
F
francesco920
Guest
It seems to me that by doing evil with something, the person who used his property to do evil has forfeited his right to it.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
So if you intentionally exceed the speed limit, you break the laws of the land which you are required to obey, do you then lose your right to own a car?
J
jmcrae
Guest
No, but if you kill someone with it, you do.
H
He_Man
Guest
Would the reaction be the same here if it was a pornographic poster?
Just curious where we draw the line as far as “vandalism is wrong” versus “defaming God is wrong.”
Just curious where we draw the line as far as “vandalism is wrong” versus “defaming God is wrong.”
M
Mirdath
Guest
Summa, Prima Secundae Partis, 96.6: *Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.
Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.*
To summarize, don’t break the law (in this case, against vandalism) since it’s just a poster and isn’t causing any immediate peril.
T
TOP
Guest
Now all you have to do is provide the legal definition of vandalism and prove malice. Tim
C
ChangingHeart
Guest
Pornography, birth control pills, cocaine, Oujia boards, tarot cards, inflatable women, etc. I think these objects are all outright evil in and of themselves.
T
TOP
Guest
SANTA? How did you get my list already? JK
M
Mirdath
Guest
Going by the Angelic Doctor’s words, no, nobody needs to prove malice. What needs to be shown is lawbreaking, which you have already done quite thoroughly. The poster was not your son’s property, yet he stole and destroyed it. He broke a legitimate law, without a pressing necessity; according to Aquinas, then, he has done wrong.
M
Mirdath
Guest
Paper and ink, or pixels, or film negatives; hormones already present in the human body; powdered plant material; laminated cardboard; an outsize deck of playing cards with pictures; plastic and air.
These things are evil?
K
kage_ar
Guest
Pornography is not actually a thing - it is an action. The thing would be ink and paper or plastic recording media and lightwaves and human bodies.
Birth Control Pills are artificial female hormones, again, neutral in and of themselves.
Cocaine is actually used medicinally, there is a problem when it is abused or illegal activities are associated to that abuse.
Ouija board - plastic, wood, ink.
It is not the thing that is evil - it is the way those things are used, the actions associated with the abuse of neutral materials.
J
jmcrae
Guest
He destroyed less than a dollar’s worth of material, and thought he had a good reason for doing so, meaning that, at best, it is a venial sin. And if fewer people get sucked into the lie that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is made up of baby-eating witches, then he has done well.
M
Mirdath
Guest
"jmcrae:
I’m not saying the kid’s damned. It’s a small matter, but the question was ‘is it a sin?’, not ‘is it a mortal sin?’. The answer to the former, according to Aquinas and the Catechism, is an emphatic yes.
Reposting this, since it looks like somebody didn’t see it:He destroyed less than a dollar’s worth of material, and thought he had a good reason for doing so, meaning that, at best, it is a venial sin. And if fewer people get sucked into the lie that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is made up of baby-eating witches, then he has done well.
The ends, no matter how good, never justify the use of sinful means.
I’m not saying the kid’s damned. It’s a small matter, but the question was ‘is it a sin?’, not ‘is it a mortal sin?’. The answer to the former, according to Aquinas and the Catechism, is an emphatic yes.
T
TOP
Guest
Since the word vandalism is being thrown around so much, it should be legaly defined. Laws on this differ from county to county and this could be considered something else , like criminal mischief if any crime at all. So confession would follow the court house.
J
jmcrae
Guest
My take on it is that it was more sinful to put the poster up, than it was to remove it, since the purpose of the poster is to promote hatred against Catholics, and particularly the Magisterium, but the purpose of removing the poster was to protest against that message.
- Status