Taking down a poster a sin?

[Sir_Knight]

Nice changing of your argument.

Argument 1: You stated that prayer is different than tearing down a poster.

Once I pointed out that the debate was not over the difference in the gravity of the actions, but whether or not a law was broken, you said:

Argument 2: It’s okay if no laws are broken.

So which is it? I assume you are saying, as long as there are no arrests for prayer at an abortion clinic, there is no sin. Which I can agree with.

That just means that those who have been arrested (whether or not the laws were fair), Fr. Pavone included, have sinned, and need to confess this as such.

No change in argument. There is no law in praying. If the police come along and tell you that you have unlawfully assembled, then you move on. If you have a permit to gather, you remain and continue to pray. You stay within the law.

I am the son of Wayne, thanks.

I am merely holding up the notion of “break a law or rule and you sin” into the light. Jesus did that a lot, according to the Jewish and Roman legal systems in place at the time. Under this strict, unbending belief, Jesus and the Apostles sinned. Newsworthy for Jesus, not so much for the Apostles.

Okay, son of Wayne, last time I checked, Wayne did not create a universe out of nothing.

The Apostles were personally commissioned by the Son of God. You and I were not. We are commissioned by God THROUGH His church. Through the successors of the Apostles.

And that church established official norms for moral behavior. One of those norms is that we can not do evil for a good purpose.

 

[He_Man]

But if you know something is a sin and do it anyway and continue to do it, how can you claim to be sorry for it? Sins are only forgiven if there is true sorrow and an honest attempt at repentance.

You can commit the same sin a million times but if each time you confess it, you are honestly sorry for it and make a true ATTEMPT not to do it again, it will be forgiven. Otherwise, it won’t.

'Nuff said on that. I have no desire to get into the state of your soul because that is none of my business. As I said, that is between you and God and I have my own sins and struggles to worry about.

True, and I agree, but I don’t confess sins if I don’t have compunction to do better and not do them again.

And I haven’t torn down any posters, just arguing the points made here. Plus, it would be a venial sin, which is removed by sprinkling Holy Water, which i do all the time.

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.

And with regards to pro-life demonstrating priests, they should do what we do around here – obtain permits to assemble … then the police can’t bother you because you have the law on YOUR side.

Works better that way – otherwise people question how can what we do be something good if we are breaking the law to do it. We also get much favorable write-ups in the news media when done lawfully and that will have a more positive influence on people trying to decide between pro-life and pro-choice.

But that doesn’t really address the notion of did these Priests’ sin?

Either way, I agree about doing it the right way for PR, but in many cases, they hook you on laws or restrictions that are obtuse, if only to find a way to take you in.

Check this out: floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html

I checked the laws for MD, and they are correct, so I assume the guy did his homework.

And somehow, I don’t see many people confessing that they went bowling…

Obscure MD Laws

**In Baltimore, it is illegal to wash or scrub sinks, no matter how dirty they get. **
**Every person who has bowled since 1833 may be fined $2 for each offence. **
**In Hale Thorpe, it is illegal to kiss for more than one second. **
**It’s illegal to mistreat oysters. **
**It’s illegal to play Randy Newman’s “Short People” on the radio. **

 

[He_Man]

No change in argument. There is no law in praying. If the police come along and tell you that you have unlawfully assembled, then you move on. If you have a permit to gather, you remain and continue to pray. You stay within the law.

There was a change. you initially claimed there is a difference between praying and poster tearing. That shouldn’t matter. Praying is irrelevant. Poster tearing is ireelevant. Obeying the law is all that matters; that is the argument. WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE DOING doesn’t matter in this context.

Okay, son of Wayne, last time I checked, Wayne did not create a universe out of nothing.

My dad couldn’t even make grilled cheese without burrning it, so no.

The Apostles were personally commissioned by the Son of God. You and I were not. We are commissioned by God THROUGH His church. Through the successors of the Apostles.

And that church established official norms for moral behavior. One of those norms is that we can not do evil for a good purpose.

If that is the argument, fair enough.

But that is different than saying you cannot break the law for a good purpose, which is what the Apostles did.

And again, I don’t by taking down a poster as an evil action. In this case, I am separating illegal from evil. But, since I don’t plan on tearing down any posters, it is a moot point.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There was a change. you initially claimed there is a difference between praying and poster tearing. That shouldn’t matter. Praying is irrelevant. Poster tearing is ireelevant. Obeying the law is all that matters; that is the argument. WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE DOING doesn’t matter in this context.

Poster tearing is destroying somebody’s property that you have no right to. Prayer isn’t breaking ANY law unless you are told that you have unlawfully assembled, then you move on. If you have a permit to gather, you remain and continue to pray. You stay within the law. Didn’t I say this already?

But that is different than saying you cannot break the law for a good purpose, which is what the Apostles did.

The apostles were commissioned by Christ. We are commissioned by Christ indirectly through the successors of the apostles and the norm that they have established for us to follow is that the ends does not justify the means. If that wasn’t written in the CCC, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.

 

[Sir_Knight]

True, and I agree, but I don’t confess sins if I don’t have compunction to do better and not do them again.

And I haven’t torn down any posters, just arguing the points made here. Plus, it would be a venial sin, which is removed by sprinkling Holy Water, which i do all the time.

You don’t think it cost Christ anything to forgive you your venial sins? Just look at the cross. Christ died for ALL of our sins – mortal and venial. It cost Christ his life through terrible suffering and a very painful death to forgive you your sins.

But that doesn’t really address the notion of did these Priests’ sin?

Either way, I agree about doing it the right way for PR, but in many cases, they hook you on laws or restrictions that are obtuse, if only to find a way to take you in.

Check this out: floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html

I checked the laws for MD, and they are correct, so I assume the guy did his homework.

And somehow, I don’t see many people confessing that they went bowling…

Obscure MD Laws

**In Baltimore, it is illegal to wash or scrub sinks, no matter how dirty they get. **
**Every person who has bowled since 1833 may be fined $2 for each offence. **
**In Hale Thorpe, it is illegal to kiss for more than one second. **
**It’s illegal to mistreat oysters. **
**It’s illegal to play Randy Newman’s “Short People” on the radio. **

Look, we’re going around in circles and getting off-topic. Let’s stick with the original question … is it sinful to take down somebody else’s sign?

Put yourself in their shoes. Let’s say that your church was running a fund raiser and it spent a considerable amount of money in printing signs, fliers, posters, etc.; in order to advertize this fund raiser so that it would be well attended.

Would it be wrong for someone to come along and remove those signs advertizing the fund raiser? YES, because your church no longer has the money used to pay for the printing of the signs, not does it have the signs nor is it getting the advertizing benefits that the signs were suppose to produce.

Taking the signs is clearly wrong and will have a negative financial impact on the church.

If taking those signs in that example is wrong, then taking the signs for WHATEVER reason is also wrong because, as has been reference in this thread already, the Catholic Church teaches that you can not do a wrongful act even if it is for a good reason.

That’s all there is to it. If you disagree, then you have a problem with church teaching. And did Jesus not says that the jaws of hell would not overcome His church and that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven?

 

[He_Man]

You don’t think it cost Christ anything to forgive you your venial sins? Just look at the cross. Christ died for ALL of our sins – mortal and venial. It cost Christ his life through terrible suffering and a very painful death to forgive you your sins.

Look, we’re going around in circles and getting off-topic. Let’s stick with the original question … is it sinful to take down somebody else’s sign?

Actually, the question of breaking silly laws is quite relevant, since the Church qualifies this as sinful behavior, correct?

Put yourself in their shoes. Let’s say that your church was running a fund raiser and it spent a considerable amount of money in printing signs, fliers, posters, etc.; in order to advertize this fund raiser so that it would be well attended.

Would it be wrong for someone to come along and remove those signs advertizing the fund raiser? YES, because your church no longer has the money used to pay for the printing of the signs, not does it have the signs nor is it getting the advertizing benefits that the signs were suppose to produce.

Taking the signs is clearly wrong and will have a negative financial impact on the church.

If taking those signs in that example is wrong, then taking the signs for WHATEVER reason is also wrong because, as has been reference in this thread already, the Catholic Church teaches that you can not do a wrongful act even if it is for a good reason.

That’s all there is to it. If you disagree, then you have a problem with church teaching. And did Jesus not says that the jaws of hell would not overcome His church and that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven?

The difference is the Catholic Church in this scenario is right and just, and Pullman is wrong and unjust. One is an entity of good, the other is not (currently). There isn’t much of a comparison of destroying tools of evil versus tools of good.

Much like under this notion, everyone who has every broken the law for good reasons is a sinner. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, numerous Pope’s, Cardinals, and Saints.

But either way, I am not trying to change the TC’s opinion of his son’s actions one way or another, only sympathizing. I can also see a lot of the more zealous saints of the past doing the same thing, in fact. There history is littered with such fervent actions.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I, and others, have told you what the Catholic Church teaches on this matter. If you wish to continue arguing the point, then have it your way.

I now bow out of this discussion leaving you free to lead others in any way that you wish. Just remember that if somebody follows your advice and it leads them to sin, YOU share the guilt of their sin and will be held accountable for it

 

[He_Man]

I, and others, have told you what the Catholic Church teaches on this matter. If you wish to continue arguing the point, then have it your way.

I now bow out of this discussion leaving you free to lead others in any way that you wish. Just remember that if somebody follows your advice and it leads them to sin, YOU share the guilt of their sin and will be held accountable for it

I gave up the argument awhile ago. I simply pointed out many cases where the notion of law breaking atuomatically equalling sin may not wash. Or if it does, it wasn’t stated as such in the examples I cited. Oh well, I’ll have to have those examples explained elswhere at some point.

And I never encouraged the OP to sin; I merely stated that I could see myself doing the same thing (sin or no sin). That is not me contradicting what the Church says. That’s why knowledgeable Catholics ARE ALWAYS culpable when they sin; we almost always know better, we simply choose to do so. We have no excuse when we sin. I am simply trying to be more honest about it up front.

Oh well, I like your moxy either way Most people would have given up a long time ago.

 

[TOP]

If you are not able to accept the answers, you shouldn’t ask the questions. Do you want people to LIE to you and tell you that it was alright when it wasn’t? Both the bible and church teaching on this matter is very clear – the ends do not justify the means … you can not do something wrong even if for a good reason.

The first few posters answered the question the best they saw how, said their piece and moved on, but you keep hammering, trying to change a conscience. The op was answered a long time ago, I don’t agree, tough **** on you if I don’t. Now get out of my zone. Tim

 

[latinmasslover]

No, every rule most certainly does not have an exception.

So…using your logic, it’d be wrong to burn down an abortion clinic for insurance money but OK for what reason?

to stop the murder of innocent children; unless, of course, you value property over innocent lives.

 

[4horseman]

…only if done without Moderation or Moderator…

http://images.elfwood.com/art/r/u/runnels/death2.jpg

 

[latinmasslover]

Its the people in the clinic that are doing wrong, not the building.

Surely you don’t suggest we burn the abortionists?

 

[Mirdath]

to stop the murder of innocent children; unless, of course, you value property over innocent lives.

What part of ‘you may not do evil so good can result’ do you not get?

 

[jmcrae]

More serious, maybe (but then again, maybe not, if you know Pullman), but the same principle applies. And I’d do the same thing.

Again, where are the posters who were angered by graphic depictions of abortions in public from a few weeks back?? I am not advocating one way or another for them, but merely pointing out that that was arguably no different.

I’ve been here all along.

I favour taking down graphic abortion posters, and I’m in favour of taking down any other kind of offensive material, and as I mentioned on the first page, I recently removed an offensive sticker from someone’s locker and “lost” it.

 

[latinmasslover]

Okay, let’s play devil’s advocate. Should anti-Catholics be allowed to burn down Catholic churches if they believe that the Catholic Church is the “great whore of babalon” [sp] (as many do) and that by destroying the churches they would be saving our souls?

This is going to sound extremely immature, but oh well:

I asked you first. I’ll answer after you.

 

[latinmasslover]

What part of ‘you may not do evil so good can result’ do you not get?

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

 

[Sir_Knight]

The first few posters answered the question the best they saw how, said their piece and moved on, but you keep hammering, trying to change a conscience.

I was addressing challenging to Catholic Church teaching.

The op was answered a long time ago, I don’t agree, tough **** on you if I don’t.

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

Now get out of my zone. Tim

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

 

[He_Man]

I’ve been here all along.

I favour taking down graphic abortion posters, and I’m in favour of taking down any other kind of offensive material, and as I mentioned on the first page, I recently removed an offensive sticker from someone’s locker and “lost” it.

Cool, glad to see the consistency. Thanks for chiming in.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you sure it was His temple?

Yes, since He is God. But you’re right - from ground level, it would have seemed as though He were meddling in an area that was none of His business.

 

[He_Man]

Yes, since He is God. But you’re right - from ground level, it would have seemed as though He were meddling in an area that was none of His business.

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.

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.