Catholics Divided: Death Penalty Debate After Charlie Kirk

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the death penalty has once again become a hot topic. Many Catholics are asking: Can we, in good conscience, support it?

In this week’s video, I sit down with Fr. Cristino to unpack the Church’s teaching on the death penalty — from Scripture and tradition, through St. John Paul II, to Pope Francis today.

This is not just about politics. It’s about justice, mercy, and the dignity of every human life.

Transcript

Father Christina, welcome back. Thank you. So today we will talk about the death penalty and also it's in light of what's happening with the murder of Charlie Kirk because the prosecutor is seeking the death penalty penalty for him. So I just thought we could start with the question, what does the church teach regarding death penalty? Mhm. So this is a bit of a moving target. Mhm. Uh there have been variations throughout history of where it would have been clearly understood that capital punishment uh meaning the execution of a convicted criminal would have been seen as completely acceptable. Uh and in certain cases uh you would have differentiated between the rationale behind that. Sometimes it was uh purely argued on the basis of it being the most uh suitable means of justice given the uh severity of the crime that no no other means of justice would seem like it was actually just unless the criminal was executed. Uh at other times in history, even if that was not necessarily the case, due to constraints in managing uh people whose behavior has become cancerous to the society in which they lived, it was seen that this was the only way that they could reasonably deal with it. At other times, it was used as a justifiable defense to say that it served as a healthy deterrent uh to other people be seeing someone being publicly executed, serving as a reminder to them that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated in our society. And so it was seen as potentially being justified by virtue of the fact that this person needed to be made an example of. As we've continued to progress through history, there eventually was, I think, a pretty sharp turn in the direction among uh the last, I'll say, the last three or four popes to want to try and turn us away from seeing the death penalty as something that we have necessary recourse to. Uh Pope John Paul II spoke most strongly about this uh in his encyclical evangelium vite, the gospel of life. Uh in which he acknowledges the legitimacy of the conceptual understanding of the death penalty, how it has been argued for in the past and that it has been seen as permissible. but then kind of uses this language of saying, "However, in our modern context, it's practically inconceivable of a situation in which just recourse to the death penalty is necessary." Uh, and I think by that he's alluding to the capacity that we now have of incarcerating someone for life. uh that they're not going to pose a threat to the rest of society and that being imprisoned for the rest of your life could be seen as maybe even worse of a punishment than just your life coming to an end. So you can't really argue that it's not a a severe enough punishment to have life imprisonment. Then fast forward again to much more recently with Pope Francis. He introduced an additional statement into the catechism of the Catholic Church where the death penalty is treated in which he goes so far as to say that not only is it not even really necessarily conceivable anymore of a circumstance in which it would be needed which was why Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict admitted that it was necessary to preserve the possibility. Pope Francis introduced the word inadmissible uh which is kind of a clever way of not saying that it is forbidden but as strongly as possible saying that uh we don't know when you could possibly ever use it. And he appeals to it strictly on the basis of the inviable nature of human dignity and saying that there is no justifiable circumstance in which a person can be with forethought and planning be put to death uh even if they are guilty of the most heinous crimes. Uh so he shifts the conversation away from the practical consideration that we don't really need the death penalty if you can have someone incarcerated for life to it is a violation of a of the human dignity of the person of no matter what guilty of no matter what crime that the state would execute them. Is this a new if you want to call it development in that language? I think you could call it uh you a pretty advanced development because it's a significant jump to calling something previously seen as not just acceptable but even praiseworthy in some circumstances then eventually kind of begrudgingly accepted then under I would say Pope John Paul conceptually acceptable but practically uh unapplicable to now having the language of Pope Francis as strongly as possible suggesting there is no circumstance in which this can be used. So there a that's a pretty distinct movement away from the the prior tradition. And so there's still to this day then some debate uh among those who would say the death penalty ought to be abolished without question or without exception everywhere in the world. Pope Francis has gone as far as to approve a document that came from the diccastastery for the faith, the doctrine of the faith, which says that we ought to work towards the total abolition of the death penalty throughout the world. Uh to say that is a pretty strong departure from what otherwise had been held as at the very least the permissibility of the use of the death penalty. that specific statement that we work for the abolishment of the death penalty and that in every circumstance it is a violation of a person's dignity. Does that mean that there's not a conceivable situation where the death penalty would be justifiable while still acknowledging that it is a violation of a person's dignity? Yes, I think that that's what the pope is trying to say is that because you can't acknowledge something being the violation of a person's dignity and proceed with using it. You can't he he is saying you can't do that. You can't say I acknowledge that this is a violation of your dignity and nevertheless we are going to do this anyhow. But could you I don't know if it's appropriate to formulate it in those terms. I think what we would say is uh and in some cases how it was argued in the past was given the nature of your crime, the need for conversion is obvious but the likelihood of you coming to that on your own and and without prompting is highly unlikely. And therefore it was almost regarded as a kind of act of mercy to say you are going to die on this day at this time at the hands of uh the legitimate authorities. You need to get right with God. And so the concept being left to languish or to remain free, this person would have no motivation whatsoever to try and repent and be reconciled. Whereas now with the imminent imminence of death about to descend upon you, perhaps that's what it took to get you convinced that now you ought to repent. Uh, and I think now we're getting into psychology like we can't know that that's that that is always going to be true and we can't base a principle off of hoping or expecting that to be true. But I think it's reasonable to argue that that is conceivable. Okay. So, land the plane with uh the person who killed Charlie Kirk. Um, is there ever a conceivable in the teaching of the church a conceivable opportunity or a conceivable situation where the just the death penalty is justified? Are you saying no? I know that there are people who would argue that according to the tradition of the teaching of the church going all the way back to scripture throughout the old and the new testament that a case could be made that because of the severity of the crime it that society is owed the justice of this person being put to death and they would have an elaborate way a coherent way of arguing for that to be the case. The present position of the church would be that it doesn't matter what you've done. There is no justifiable reason. Particularly, and this is following the school of thought of Pope John Paul, particularly if we know it's possible to keep you imprisoned for life, that we would have recourse to the death penalty just for the sake of setting an example that we hope causes deterrence or like of other offenders in the future or to satisfy the need for justice in the community that they saw that you've been brought to the absolute and ultimate justice of being executed. uh that is sort of the two different ways that this would be debated in the life of the church. If you want to ask me my personal opinion about where I land on this, I would lean more towards saying in the particular case of this fellow Tyler Robinson who's being charged has been charged with and will be on trial for this that in the potential that you don't know beyond reasonable doubt of a person's guilt, that should be enough to say we cannot have recourse to the death penalty. Uh I find it alarming how just in the criminal justice system he has been spoken about. Uh the the governor's headline was we got him on the the documents that were on the FBI news media communicate said in there that that this man who was guilty of shooting Charlie Kirk, he hasn't had to trial yet. So, it's just it's you haven't gone through the necessary checks and balances that have been put in the criminal justice system to guarantee a just defense against the possibility of being wrongfully accused. And so that's one other reason why I think it's prudent to argue against the death penalty where it could be very very difficult to be absolutely certain that you are putting to death someone who is fully and freely guilty of the crime that they committed. uh and an advocate for this position has been someone named sister Helen Prejan who was made very famous uh by a Hollywood film that was made with Susan Sandon who played her called dead man walking uh and it showcased the ministry that Sister Helen Prejan uh exercised for many years which was to accompany death row inmates up to their execution uh just as a way of trying to share the gospel with them hopefully bringing them to a place of inner peace and conversion before they inevitably were executed. And in the movie, it it shows one particular case of someone that she was convinced had been wrongfully accused and found wrongfully guilty of this crime for which now he was going to be executed. And so she began advocating for him. Uh in the seminary, I can't remember what year, maybe about 2005 or so, I had the opportunity to meet sister Helen Pjan. She gave a public lecture at the university in London, Ontario. And I spoke with her afterwards and I got a copy of a more recent book that she had published in which she outlined very alarming statistics about the frequency with which people end up on death row in the in the states and the United States which still allow for it who later their guilty verdict is overturned. And thankfully they hadn't been executed before that determination was made uh because they were eventually found usually because of the eventual discovery of other DNA evidence that they had the wrong person. So when we see that there's that level of the possibility that this individual is either completely not guilty for it or has played a part in something that is something bigger than themsel for which they're taking the fall completely on their own for reasons like that I think it's better to avoid the death penalty assuming that they are participating in something and it's something larger than themselves is going on But they are still found guilty of a crime. Uh does that somehow diminish the punishment because they are participating something with others rather than themselves? Well, I think you absolutely could diminish their culpability because the involvement of other people automatically suggests a greater complexity of what's happened than the way that it looks. I I I I have not yet seen video evidence that shows this person on this position on the roof firing this gun at that man and now he's dead. That I haven't seen that. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but that's not been publicly shown. Maybe that's going to be shown in court. What has been shown is video footage of what looks like this man who allegedly is in custody running across the roof of a building that is presumed to be the place from which Charlie Kirk was assassinated. But that's I don't know what that is. It's evidence of of something. Uh, it's also surprising to see that the timestamp on that video footage of him running is shown to be the exact same time that that Charlie Kirk was shot. So, it's a pretty fast turnover of events that shots taken and like within literal seconds, you're already running across the roof of the building, but it's not clear where the gun is. There's just questions that I think are that a defense attorney is going to hammer out in court and and really try to insist need to be clarified and answered uh before a verdict could be reached and if there isn't this is a clause in American law anyway if there isn't um beyond reasonable doubt certainty that this person is guilty they would never be able to appeal for the death penalty. Um, if they are found guilty, um, I don't know the law. If they were found guilty, does that not mean that they were they're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or can you be found guilty and still be there's some doubt? That's I I I don't know for sure this the specifics in American law, but I think you can't be found guilty unless a jury feels that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. But I I think that that has to do I can't remember if it means you have to have a unanimous jury or whatever, but there's the whole point is the the criminal justice system has anticipated the possibility that we could get this wrong. we have all of these layers that would suggest we could get this wrong or that we've only got one part of a bigger scheme in this person and so to let them take him or her take the fall exclusively if they were part of something bigger is in itself unjust. So there's already admissions built into the system that recognize there's a lot of steps that we need to follow here to make sure that that we're not getting this wrong. I know you mentioned uh off camerara something about uh Erica Kirk. Mhm. His wife said some some things regarding this I thought maybe it'd be worth mentioning here. Well, she I I read an interview she apparently gave. I didn't hear live audio of her saying this, but where she was asked if she would want the death penalty to be pursued. Uh, and I thought she gave a a very insightful response, which was to say, and I'm paraphrasing, but I believe she said that she would rather not weigh in on that and and hope that that is only worked out by the legal authorities because she wouldn't want to play any role in determining whether or not this accused person should be executed. And part of why I'm assuming it's only part, but part of why is because of she saying if my public call for him to be executed could somehow later in my judgment before Christ himself be held against me as having participated in something that was unpleasing to the Lord. I don't want that to possibly hold me back from being able to be reunited one day with Charlie in heaven. And I thought, wow, what a what a powerful way for her to look upon that to say, I I don't want to potentially risk my salvation by asking for something that could be displeasing to the Lord. I think that's a very insightful way of examining any moral question. Not can I find a way to argue being allowed to do this, but could this be displeasing to the Lord? And if I think there's a chance that it could be, that's enough of a reason for me to say I won't do this. For those people who support capital punishment, they may argue that injustice, we need to have there needs there needs to be fairness. And so it would be for example unjust to greatly punish a literal offense on on the other side it would it not be right to have proportional justice? I mean you do a heinous crime isn't there a point where the proportional justice is you to pay for that price you your life is has to be given. We'll get back to the conversation in just a second but a question for you. If you've been blessed by this video, you could help us out in a couple very simple ways. Firstly, like and share this video. YouTube is going to see that and then suggest this message out to a larger audience. So, that's something simple you could do. Secondly, could you pray for us? We're always in need of grace and we'd greatly appreciate your prayers. And thirdly, if it is possible, consider supporting our mission at cannonjanel.com. Your support allows us to continue producing videos just like the one you're watching. So, thank you so much for the consideration. Now, back to the conversation. you do a heinous crime, isn't there a point where the proportional justice is, you to pay for that price, you your life is has to be given. That's that is the basic rationale of those who would defend the goodness of the death penalty that there is an a a kind of justice that is being served that is proportionate to the unjust crime that was committed. I I can follow that line of reasoning, but I find it difficult to understand the criteria. And you know how I am. I'm big on needing to know the consistently applicable criteria that can be used devoid of my emotional reaction. And so that I find really difficult to substantiate. when adjudicating when and to whom and for what reason the death penalty is going to be meed out and that it's not going to be just driven by hatred. Uh because hatred would be a completely understandable emotional response on the part of anyone in society who has suffered an injustice at the hands of someone. Uh it's understandable that they have that emotional reaction. But if that emotional reaction is part of driving a decision to say, "And now the proportionate response to your crime is that you will be executed." I think that that's difficult. I have a hard time figuring out how that will be ascertained. And you can't just say, "Well, if you murder someone, you deserve to be murdered." Because there are, I think you could argue, the kinds of crimes that are perpetrated against some people who are not killed perhaps cause them even more longlasting suffering that they bear for the rest of how long they live that they'd almost rather have been killed. Well, how do you treat that one then? Because they weren't killed, right? So now when do you start deciding what criteria are going to begin to be applied? Whereas in the past when it was can we keep this person away from the rest of society uh uh is there a way in which we can demonstrate the severity of the crime is being met with a severe punishment. Those criteria, I think, are easier to answer objectively than how much does this person deserve to suffer in light of what they've done. Okay. Um I wonder if you would respond the same in the same way to this objection that the death penalty for some people um I maybe two things. one, it makes them responsible as a moral agent for their actions. Um, not giving them a death penalty is like, well, again, it's it's it misses the the punishment doesn't fit the crime. For example, my it would be unjust for me to let my children and unloving to let my children go unpunished for certain things that they do in our household that would be morally wrong. If they punch each other, I give them a consequence and I try and make it sure that it's fitting for what they have done. A little bit more serious uh violation of the moral code in the Yuzinski house. Well, then you're going to the corner maybe for a longer time or the consequence extends further into the next day. Um, some would say the just the the the the value of the death penalty meets that person who violated that because it it shows them that there is consequences to their actions and not to give the death penalty as an option could violate their dignity the other way shows them that it doesn't matter too much because you can get away with a light sentence. Mhm. I I understand that argument. You are the head of your household. You have to be able to determine the way in which you meet out justice in punishment to your children. And I think you could say that punishment of your children isn't to get back at them for whatever bad they've done. It's to reform their behavior so that they can continue to be a a functioning member of your family, a responsible member in your family. This is another area of of debate. What is the end of let's say incarceration? What is the end of imprisonment? Is it just to keep a person out of society? Is it to put them on a timeout? Is it to hopefully reform them? I have I have worked with I don't know how many people who have served a jail sentence after they've been released from prison who during the time that they were there were accessing counseling and spiritual direction and in the case of those who were already Catholic have returned to the sacraments

obviously something happened to them in prison that provoked a conversion so that they can return to society as a reformed individual and hopefully we would expect now can contribute positively to the society that they once harmed by their previous actions. I think that's that has to be taken into consideration in the manner in which we execute punishment. If it's if it's just to have retribution, it will never be just because we are incapable of of realizing fully just retribution in a finite world with our finite minds. That's why it says in scripture, justice alone is God's because he is the only one who will ever be able to execute perfect justice.

What about the person who says um withholding the death penalty

continues to violate the dignity of the person who experienced this crime. Maybe they lost their life. Mhm. We can't ask them that. Someone else is making a judgment of that. We have we have here the case of a of a widow whose husband was assassinated saying I don't want to be part of a conversation about asking for the death penalty. You think if there is anyone who should have the right to say in the name of my husband's dignity I demand that this person be executed. So again, now we don't have the possibility of a consistent application of a principle if we're leaving it up to the victims who are left behind getting to decide how does this work. I I had the opportunity once of being uh I I delivered a victim impact statement in court on behalf of a family to whom I am very close whose father and husband had been killed by a drunk driver. Uh, and I was appalled while I was sitting in the courtroom listening to the defense of this drunk driver who plead guilty. There was no denying that he was guilty of this crime. He was still at the scene when the police arrived. That he deserved a $1,000 fine because the emotional anguish that he has suffered as a consequence of this has been punishment enough. Uh, and so the defense attorney was saying, asking the judge to consider just that $1,000 fine. Imagine how that sounded to this family that the justice that they were going to be served amounted to their husband and father being worth $1,000. Now, thankfully, the judge was able to see beyond that. I don't know the extent to which my my statement in which I reflected upon. I'm a priest. I I went dressed in my clerical attire to the court. I said I believe in mercy. Uh but mercy is meaningless if there isn't justice. Justice is mercy too. Justice heals us. And so I argued that this family doesn't just need justice. this gentleman needs justice to be healed also of the crime he has committed and uh he's been sentenced to four years in prison and you know all these other conditions that are going to be put against him but I appreciate I use that story to illustrate I appreciate how degrading to the dignity of a person of a victim or their or those closest to that victim could feel if disproportionate underproportionate justice was trying to be served. But how to reach the maximum, I'm not sure how you arrive at that. I think we can tell that this is not enough, but I don't know how we could tell that we've reached all that is needed in this particular circumstance. I think I know the answer. Is perfect justice ever accomplished in this world? Impossible. It's impossible. That's why God says vengeance is mine, says the Lord. Only he is going to ever be able to execute perfect justice. That's why we will face a final judgment because it is impossible for us to be judged fully and adequately in this life. So part of this I I'm thinking is I think it's an important point because when we don't experience perfect justice and in this world especially especially for those of us who desire perfect justice it's a cross and I think it's helpful to realize even if what I thought was executed as justice this it still falls short and will not be enough because we are not God. We do not f Is it correct that we will we we cannot fully understand what perfect justice means in situations. Is that is that correct to say? I think that's we're we're only ever just trying our best and if we're trying our best then that means we have to be guided by sound moral principles and by virtue. That's why there's the the old saying of uh of you know meant to talk about something being handled by someone unjustly that they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. The whole point of us recognizing that those three offices need to be held by different people is precisely because of the fact that we realize the potential for us to corrupt something that I am allowing myself to be guided by my passions. Uh, and that that's why we that's why we condemn the idea of vigilante justice. I'm going to take justice into my own hands. They're not dealing with it, so I'm going to deal with it. If we admit of the possibility of that, it's it produces chaos. Now, that's why the state alone would could be seen as the arbiter of the death penalty. That was always understood. a private citizen didn't never had the right to say I'm going to execute this person because of the injustice that they've done unto me. The church has never acknowledged that as being acceptable because the idea is there has to be someone who can remain objective if this is ever going to be able to be acceptably accomplished. So I I don't know. I probably sound like I'm I'm I'm speaking in circles, but it's because I I I appreciate the tension of saying I'm not prepared to just throw away the tradition of the church's teaching and say, "Well, now we're enlightened and we actually have things figured out in the 21st century," which I don't think could be further from the truth. And therefore, we just dismiss that. Just pretend like we never used to teach that. But I'm I can't depart from the teaching that we've been receiving over the last number of pontificates where we are being urged to much more cautiously approach this question for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the possibility that an innocent person could be sentenced to death. So regarding the death penalty and you you look at it historically, it's pretty clear from scripture of the early church fathers and teaching prior that it was seen as a just and reasonable way to execute justice in mo basically in modern times um within our with starting with would it be correct with John Paul II or was it was the the evolution if lack of a better word started some are going to say man this doesn't look like a del a development of teaching but a a change in the church's teaching which is quite problematic because the claim of the Catholic Church is that our our teachings do not change they've been given to us from Jes Jesus and the apostles and the successors they handed down each sub subsequent generation so this this is a this is an issue right because if you're saying the death penalty changed you're saying all the all the previous generations either were wrong and this one was right or this one is wrong and all the previous generations is right. So that's why I bring it up because people are struggling with this. It's like has the church's teaching changed or is this just basically um a development? Mhm. I I I regret to use this topic or this question as the proof of the uh unchangeability of the church's teaching because as I referred to earlier the introduction of the specific language that the pope has used Pope Francis in his modification to the catechism of the Catholic Church about something being inadmissible it's a novel term we in English we know how we think it counts and we know what we think that it me is meant to imply. But there is stronger and clearer language that could be used to imply not imply but mean just that like saying therefore it is forbidden therefore this must be abregated. Therefore, notwithstanding everything previously taught, this is now what we teach. And he didn't do that quite on purpose, precisely for what I think your point is. Then it would be an obviously and explicit change to the church's teaching. But that doesn't mean that he's not effectively trying to move us in the general vicinity of it having been changed without saying that that's what we've done. And that's why on this particular topic, I think it's especially problematic because we're not properly speaking touching upon a point of of revealed doctrine. The the application of the moral norms of the church flow as much from natural law as they do from divine revelation. And so I think it's an unhelpful example to use to to debate the question, does the church's teachings change? And has the pope changed the church's teaching on this one? I think we get we get put into a stalled position where we don't really know what to move because of all the other f far fartherreaching implications it would have depending on which way you answer that question. Okay. Uh, somebody's watching right now. They're a devout Catholic. They want to ascend to the fullness of the faith, but they feel they believe that the death penalty is applicable in this situation with the person who killed Charlie Kirk. Are they or are they not in line with the teaching of the church?

Well, we have to be very particular and clear about our language. So, there isn't a person who is guilty of shooting Charlie Kirk right now that is known by the court because there has been no trial. And that's that's how we do things. We have to have due process. And so, we don't have that right now. If a guilty verdict is delivered that this person is beyond reasonable doubt, the convicted assassin of Charlie Kirk and a Catholic wants to defend his or her position that he ought to have applied to him the death penalty, they have an entire tradition backing them up that they can appeal to and say, This is not contrary to the church's teaching. And here's a billion examples and ways of of justifying this position that I'm holding. At the same time, there could be another Catholic who would say, I think it is better and preferred that we do not apply the death penalty not only to just not this person but any person where it is possible that they could be detained for life. And I think that person would also be able to say that they are in line with the more recent position that the church has taken particularly in the catechism of the Catholic Church. I know that those sound like contradictions to each other but they are they are contrary positions not contradictory positions. And when you have contraries, that's why you need to have a judge who will say yes or no. And we're not the judge. The private citizens are not the judge. So our opinion is irrelevant. And let me give a different example. Following 9/11, you had factions in the American government both for and against declaring war and invading Iraq. And you had Catholics in both of those camps. And rather uncharacteristically, you had Pope John Paul II publicly clarify that the decision to invade Iraq could not be justified according to what we call the just war tradition. He said that that's that's about as strong of a judge as you can have dealing with this situation. And you had an entire camp of Catholics who said, "Holy Father, we respectfully disagree." And so there were Catholics involved in helping President Bush decide that this was going to be a justified course of action to take.

The pope said very explicitly and clearly this would not be a justifiable war. So why I bring up that example is because the pope is also not the president of the country that's choosing to go and invade another country. All he can do is offer his ruling of the assessment of a situation as he sees it. had a Catholic said then I then I refuse to participate in this because I I need to listen to the advice of my pope. They you can't argue that that person is just acting in good conscience. Mhm. The Catholics who went ahead were not excommunicated. They were not punished. The pope didn't sanction them in any way. Their decision to participate and support the the war was public and obvious. So it seems to be that contrary positions can be held in tension and perhaps only later with further reflection can it be looked back upon as I think many people do now saying what did we do that for? What what was the point of invading Iraq? and they have reason to say that now that at the time they just didn't. So that's why I say we can't have perfect and clear justice in this life because we aren't capable of seeing fully the whole big picture. Okay. Well, thanks for your thoughts. Appreciate it. My pleasure.