[Alex Murphy]

My point here, is that infractions, (even serious ones) of the moral law are often likely to earn nothing but a smile from the civil authorities and this raises the question of how far it is morally permissible to go in resisting this sort of thing.

Exactly what "moral law" infractions were committed by this billboard? Can these "morally lawful" destructive actions be extended, permitting Catholics to cause direct harm against the billboard's creator? Against the sign company that (re)produced the artwork and erected it, and that owns the underlying structure? Against the Auckland Anglican church that sponsored and paid for the advertisement?

[marshmallow]

Exactly what "moral law" infractions were committed by this billboard?

Blasphemy.

Can these "morally lawful" destructive actions be extended, permitting Catholics to cause direct harm against the billboard's creator?

Try not to put words in my mouth. I did not say that the destruction was "morally lawful". My point is that this is not a simple issue and the actions taken by the protestor do not justify your ridiculous canard that Catholics have no respect for property rights.

Violence against those responsible for erecting the display in question would not be justified under Catholic teaching. The Church does not even recommend "violence" as a punishment for those convicted of murder, in most cases. That's common knowledge.