The Pope’s Death Penalty Stance Is Unconvincing

I n the context of news that the United States would proceed with the execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, the Army Medical Corps psychologist who killed 13 soldiers and injured 32 others in 2009, Pope Leo reiterated the modern Catholic Church’s position that the death penalty is an attack on the dignity of the human person and that it is “inadmissible” because modern detention systems can safeguard citizens without completely depriving those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.

The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that…

— Pope Leo XIV (@Pontifex) October 10, 2026

If you ask AI-powered search engines about this news, they will explain that the pope is reaffirming a “revised Catholic Church teaching introduced by Pope Francis in 2018.” And in both Pope Leo’s post on X and in the new catechism, this revised teaching immediately occasions many questions. For instance: What do you mean by “inadmissible”? That doesn’t seem like a familiar criterion in Catholic theology. Are you saying this because obviously the church previously taught that the death penalty was just and even conducive to the restoration of the common good and that it arouses a sense of guilt in the condemned?

Further, which is it? Is it inadmissible because it’s an attack on the dignity of a human person? Or because it’s unnecessary to protect society? Does that mean it would be okay to attack the dignity of a human person if prisons were no longer so reliable? Also, hasn’t life imprisonment been possible and reliable for centuries? Why is the church only now predicating a teaching on the condition of prisons? Traditionally the church has only asserted that it has a competence to interpret the deposit of faith, what God revealed in Scripture and tradition. Now it’s asserting a competence to authoritatively make inferences about social-political conditions. Where does that come from?

What about cases in which prison isn’t “effective”? El Chapo managed to command a killer narco empire from within prison and effect his own escape. Would it have been an attack on his dignity to impose the death penalty? Also, how does killing a convicted murderer completely deprive him of the possibility of redemption? The Catholic Church traditionally teaches that God’s sovereign will, expressed through grace, is what determines salvation. If judicial systems and executioners can “completely deprive” people who are guilty of the possibility of redemption even after a long trial, imprisonment, and sentencing, what about the murderer’s victims, who had no warning?

Also, is the church subtly implying that other prisoners are not part of society and don’t need more protection from determined murderers? There are far more prison murders every year in the United States than there are impositions of the death penalty. In recent years in the United States, prison murders outnumber executions about six to one. If anything, it seems to me that the moral emergency in our justice system isn’t the death penalty, which is relatively rare, but the incredible incidence of criminality — especially rape — in prisons themselves. This is widely tolerated and seems to carry a popular enthusiasm that it is deserved. I’ve never seen a senior churchman address this. And yet I’m supposed to believe it is motivated by the good of the prisoners?

Now, the church has always had an expressed preference for mercy and clemency over harshness and justice. Some early church fathers argued that Christians should not participate even in lawful executions. Pope Innocent I, referencing Paul’s letter to the Romans, said Christian magistrates could pronounce death sentences lawfully without fear of excommunication. There are also certain factors about the execution of Hasan which are notable. The secretary of defense said the execution would be livestreamed. This itself brings up questions about how the footage would be used, whether it would generate a prurient interest in the violence that is almost pornographic, etc. I’m with the vice president, who said, “I won’t be watching.”

Like a lot of modern people, when I came back to the church, my prejudice was that the death penalty was always carried out in a spirit of vindictiveness or bloodlust. I feel none of that — and would be happy to never think about Hasan again as he rots in a prison for life. That might protect the public, but is that justice? I’m no longer convinced. Saint Thomas Aquinas, following the ancient philosophers, defined justice as “giving a man what is his due.” The church’s traditional teaching said that the death penalty could help restore the common good through retributive justice and even be expiatory for the convict if, like the thief on the cross, he accepts it. But the church’s current death penalty teaching is strangely silent about what criminals deserve for their crimes. Pope Francis even made stray comments condemning life imprisonment.

Perhaps there is a Christian logic of some kind of death penalty moratorium, or a transition to a system that raises the standard for imposition in these cases from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to something stronger like “moral certainty.” But Hasan’s case clears that bar easily. And the church hasn’t really made that argument. Instead, it has made this assertion.

I’m a Catholic, and even if I’m an obstreperous traditionalist on matters of liturgy, my inclination is to accept the moral leadership of the pope. But I can’t obey a teaching whose logic actually escapes me. These pronouncements from the pope have a rhetorical sound like authority, but without the force of reason. I can’t find it compelling.