okay there we go, 2303 and 2409
Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,”
Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.
and then we got the word, " illicit " defined as forbidden by law, rules or cutsom, so… why isn’t the answer in the catechism more cut and dry, labeling something as either a mortal or minor sin, or something as wrong but not sinful. using a word like illicit is a bit too broad for interpretation. because then one has to say which law, rules or custom, at least in regards to two items i quoted.
so in regards to eco activism, or eco terrorism, which ever one prefers, and for one real world analogy , there are countries like Iceland and Japan that are still whaling, and doing so in protected waters by and on whales that are recognized as endangered, so ipsofacto you take anyone of any conservation group, and members of that group in turn safely manage to sink any of these ships with out loss of life or even remotely close to harming anyone.
how then in turn is the church judging that i guess based at least on this much of the catechism that we have sited here. versus, someone wanting to enact revenge on someone, not cause bodily harm but destroy a piece of their personal property.
both are wrong legally , revenge probably more so than destroying an illegal whaling vessel but still in all.
or rather maybe i should pose my question as , even with non life threatening actions that are illegal or just morally wrong on some level, the catechism it seems even though it doesnt label things in a blatant black and white terms , these actions are still going to be considered sinful on some kind of level, that much i think is correct it seems is my question now. ?