Knock it off. That's a complete canard. What the division of opinion on this thread shows is that this is not a simple issue, with some (including the author of the article) being of the opinion that the action taken was wrong, while others believe it was justified.
All rights, including property rights, come from God but the right to own property does not come without constraints and responsibilities and I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a reputable moral theologian on this issue. Can the destruction of abortuaries be justified for instance, on the basis that it may save human lives, even though the facilities are privately owned? Neither the killing of unborn babies nor blasphemy are civil offenses and so both actions (tearing down blasphemous posters or destroying abortion facilities) would earn the displeasure of the law.
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.
It does not mean that "property rights mean nothing to Catholics"
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?