No, pro-life is a termed created to describe something specific, which was against legalized abortion. When people start adding other definitions in, it dilutes the original meaning and creates a need for a term where we had already had a term.
We simply disagree then… being anti abortion is critical, but definitely doesn’t stop there.
The Magisterium also has to counter false doctrine claiming to be Catholic which is why it addresses the issue of CP now. CP has been gradually abolished around the world for the last century and a half without any special commentary from the Vatican. The big problem with a specific ‘faction’ in the US is trying to influence the natural movement away from CP using false claims which amount to stating that CP is intrinsically just and can never be deemed immoral. A particular focus of this ‘faction’ was the efforts of Sr Helen Prejean to abolish the death penalty as an unjust punishment. Being that there was too competing Catholic voices in the US Catholic Church ie Sr Prejean and the ‘faction’. the Church was compelled to address this in the strongest terms.Emeraldlady:
Capital punishment is not a current issue for which we need a living Magisterium. CP has been around since long before the Church and throughout Church history, and throughout that latter time, the Church has specified that CP is not wrong if applied to malefactors.
The proper application of the living Magisterium to current issues is to understand the morality of new acts such as nuclear weapons or IVF.
That’s playing a numbers game without considering the relative gravity of the issues.
CP has never been considered immoral when properly applied, so it is not false doctrine as you claim.
I have never heard about this before, and think that if what you suggest is true, then the explanations would reflect that. Do you have a source for more information?
You might find one reference to that passage related to capital punishment among all the Doctors and Fathers who ever wrote on the subject. That is, your interpretation is your own, it doesn’t comport with the way the church has ever regarded it.
Again, your position has never been accepted by the church, and is a rejection of a teaching largely unchanged since before Augustine.
The question is not whether to follow Jesus, but whether to prefer your interpretation over the church’s regarding what Jesus actually taught.
The recent change was almost an infinitesimal change -
While this is true, it is not the sum total of the Church teaching on the matter, which does connect the two issues. The underlying principle is the intrinsic value of human life. I have no problem with conscientious dissent, but we shouldn’t misrepresent the teaching of the Church, which most definitely considers both a pro-life issue, even if of a different magnitude. Nor should the Church, the Pope, or anyone really, be accused of political motives for trying to teach. No one likes that.
I think what she means is that CP has never been a doctrine, period. Some claim that it’s a doctrine and it’s not a doctrine.
That states have a legitimate right to apply capital punishment has been a doctrine proclaimed by the church for 2000 years.
The false doctrine would be to claim that it is immoral. That would be heresy.
The doctrine is that CP is admissible if it serves the common good. That’s always been Catholic doctrine. The Summa Theologica is an 800 year old document and Aquinas, a Doctor of Theology makes it quite clear that the scope of doctrine is that CP is forbidden if it does not serve the common good. ST II II 64 2TK421:
That states have a legitimate right to apply capital punishment has been a doctrine proclaimed by the church for 2000 years.
What we have with the last two alterations (2018, 1997) are not doctrines, but judgments that its application in modern societies would be counterproductive and therefore it ought not be used. Judgments are not doctrines, and do not require assent. The doctrine remains unchanged.