Crossroads Podcast: Christians And The Firing-Squad Execution
Journalists who want to know what the church of Rome teaches on issues as complex as the death penalty need to start with the basics — an up-to-date copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In this case, the “up-to-date copy” reference is relevant, as seen in a Religion News Service feature that we discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. This week’s topic was religion-news coverage of the White House call to execute Major Nidal Malik Hasan by firing squad, in response to the U.S. Army psychiatrist’s 2009 mass-murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, while injuring 32 others.
After calling for the execution to be televised or streamed online for the public, the White House — after we recorded the podcast — modified that order and said the livestream would only be available to families of the victims.
Concerns about a televised firing-squad execution were clear in remarks made by Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who oversees Catholic pastoral work with the U.S. armed services. A Fox News report noted:
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said he wanted soldiers to execute Hasan at the time, day of the week and location of the shooting and has argued that making the execution public would help serve as a deterrent.
Broglio recalled presiding over the funeral of one of Hasan's victims, Michael Grant Cahill, the only civilian killed in that attack, and expressed sorrow over the deadly shooting. But the archbishop questioned whether the U.S. government wanted to "imitate the terrorists of this world and make a public spectacle of barbarically killing our adversaries."
Hasan’s crime “was heinous, but does exposing the public to his execution serve any purpose?” Broglio asked in a statement. “I oblige any Catholics assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused from this action contrary to the teaching of the Church,” he continued.
Reading through press coverage of all this, I saw what I thought was a spectrum of doctrinal beliefs about issues linked to this firing-squad execution, originally on a national livestream. Here is a brief and simplified description of those stances:
— Death penalty is immoral, period.
— Death penalty is acceptable under some circumstances, but should be avoided because of modern evidence about how issues of money, race, power and trial locations affect sentences given to those accused.
— Death penalty is acceptable, but a firing squad on television is unacceptable.
— Death penalty is acceptable, but returning to the use of a firing squad would be cruel and unusual.
— Fire away. Proper authorities made this decision. This event will be a warning to terrorists.
The various news reports about the firing-squad execution focused on Catholic teachings about the death penalty because Catholic leaders quickly released clear, quotable statements about the issues involved in this case. Also, the odds were statistically high that Catholic soldiers could be asked to take part in the execution.
Then again, it is highly likely that evangelical Protestants could be asked to take part.
In the press coverage, quotes from self-proclaimed evangelicals fell into two predictable camps — those who support President Donald Trump and progressives who do not. Who was missing? Evangelical and Protestant leaders who support Trump on some issues and not others, as well as those whose views on the death penalty fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum that I described earlier.
Truth is, there are many conservative (as opposed to progressive) evangelicals who would disagree with the blunt views expressed in the following:
Some Christian leaders expressed support for live streaming Hasan’s execution. In a statement to RNS, Wilson — who oversees the controversial church Hegseth attends — said he prefers “public executions to those conducted in the recesses of a prison somewhere in the middle of the night,” adding, “executions in the Scriptures were public.” …
Pastor Robert Jeffress, a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump who leads First Baptist Church in Dallas, told RNS he supports Hegseth’s decision.
“Capital punishment is commanded by God in Genesis 9:6 to remind people of the sanctity of human life,” Jeffress, a Southern Baptist, said in an email. “Life is so valuable, God said, that whoever takes a life should pay with his own life. The more people that can see that truth illustrated through a public execution, the better.”
However, most of the mainstream coverage faced on Catholic opposition, to varying degrees, of this execution. Here is a crucial passage from that same RNS report:
While Catholics have long been generally opposed to the death penalty, Pope Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2018 to clarify that the church views the death penalty as “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” adding that Catholics will work “with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
Similarly, Pope Leo XIV celebrated efforts to abolish the death penalty in parts of the U.S. before becoming pope, and he told reporters last year that “someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.”
As with many pastoral and doctrinal changes made during the often controversial reign of Pope Francis, some Catholics might even question this new wording in an “up-to-date copy” of the Catechism.
In the following reference, some would see a leap from the views of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XIV to those of Pope Francis. For example, the current Catechism states:
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
The key words are “a new understanding has emerged.”
In other words, Catholic teachings have evolved. Many Catholics embrace that change, while others may not. Some conservative Catholics would note that there are Catholics who, while defending the sanctity of life, are much more strict about how politicians (even Catholics) deal with the death penalty than they are with legal actions about legalized and even state-funded abortion.
In the recent past, relatively speaking, Catholic leaders stressed that while the death penalty may be necessary, under certain circumstances, the emphasis now is on questions about whether legal authorities can use this sentence in a way that is fair and equitable. Thus, the death penalty is rarely acceptable.
Consider the nuances in this passage from the John Paul II document “Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)” issued in 1995. This is long, but essential, for journalists who want to cover a variety of Catholic views on death-penalty issues:
“This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence.”
Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
So what has clearly changed? With good cause, the RNS story notes these very quotable statements from Francis and his successor:
While Catholics have long been generally opposed to the death penalty, Pope Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2018 to clarify that the church views the death penalty as “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” adding that Catholics will work “with determination for its abolition worldwide.”
Similarly, Pope Leo XIV celebrated efforts to abolish the death penalty in parts of the U.S. before becoming pope, and he told reporters last year that “someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.”
After reading the words of the two most recent popes, it’s easy to see why the Francis-era Catechism moves from the nuanced passage quoted earlier to this blunt statement:
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Before Pope Francis, some Catholics would have insisted that it was possible to argue that the crimes of Major Hasan, and the links between his actions and mass terrorism, could justify a death sentence by a military court.
After all, Hasan argued that his deadly actions were justified, serving as an appropriate form of defensive jihad to protect the Taliban in Afghanistan from U.S. military forces, as well as defending other Muslims fighting against apostate nations. He pled guilty.
Would all Catholic leaders today agree with statements that Hasan does not deserve the ultimate penalty? Are those differences newsworthy?
Catholics often debate, in news coverage, how church teachings are applied. They even debate whether some teachings remain authoritative in a pluralistic culture. However, in most mainstream news coverage, it certainly appears that some Catholic dissenters are more quotable than others.