Pope Leo Makes Mistake of Emulating Christ
How dare he.
[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]
It’s likely you haven’t been following the latest drama in the ongoing tension between the American far-right and Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff and perpetual thorn in the side of exasperated religious fundamentalists.
Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois—a lifelong Catholic—who earlier this year announced he will retire at the end of his present term, was to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from Cardinal Blase J. Cupich and the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Office of Human Dignity and Solidarity Immigration Ministry for his career work on immigration.
For those unaware, Senator Durbin has been a stalwart champion for common sense immigration reform. In 2001, he introduced the original DREAM Act, which would have provided a reasonable citizenship pathway for undocumented migrants brought to the U.S. as children.
After its defeat, he reintroduced the bill several times over the years before coming tantalizing close to its passage in 2010, when it cleared the House and nearly overcame a Senate filibuster with 55 votes; five Democrats in red states tanked the effort out of political convenience (none of whom are still in the Senate).
In 2012, President Obama created DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), which had similar criteria to the DREAM Act. That exists to this day, but its expansion was halted—although existing DACA recipients may still apply for renewal—and its ultimate fate will likely be decided by the Supreme Court next year.
Anyway, Sen. Durbin being honored for his advocacy by the Catholic Church makes sense given his decades of public leadership on the issue and the Church’s stance on migrants and refugees. Even the more conservative cardinals in the Church oppose mass deportations and family separations, to say nothing of deporting children.
But the award did not sit well with a number of other American Catholic officials, who were shocked that the Diocese would honor Sen. Durbin in light of his career advocacy for abortion rights.
On Tuesday, Pope Leo, who is stridently anti-choice, was asked about the controversy and offered a rather nuanced response, including this:
Someone who says ‘I’m against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life. Someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.
This is, of course, reasonable framing, and yet, it was surprising to most observers that the Pope pointed out an obvious argument that has been steadfastly and broadly ignored by conservatives for many years: that the so-called “pro-life” position often seems concerned with only one aspect of the sanctity of life.
Many conservative commentators and pundits were not pleased with the Pope’s response, claiming he had been reductive in the Church’s stance on the death penalty and that the comparison wasn’t honest.
But they’re wrong. The Catholic Church has been pretty clear for quite some time that the death penalty is almost always morally indefensible.
In 1997, Pope John Paul II, a hero to many but particularly to conservative Catholics, revised the Catechism with this passage:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
So, even Pope John Paul II recognized that while the death penalty may be necessary in extremely rare cases in which the safety of others should be prioritized, our modern legal systems make such a threat remote when a sentence of life-in-prison sufficiently removes that threat. Thus, the death penalty is nearly always unnecessary.
Building on JP2’s theological framework, Pope Francis went further in his 2018 revision to the Catechism:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
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.
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.
I mean, this is the product of rational examination. It’s very simple: life should only be taken if it constitutes a threat to other life. If someone found guilty of murder is spending their life in prison, they are not a threat to other life.
I completely agree with the late pontiffs.
But even beyond logical theology, there’s another thing to consider here: it’s been repeatedly established that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent against heinous crimes. Every major study done on the death penalty as a deterrent has found it has no effect on prevention. It just doesn’t work.
In fact, here in the United States, jurisdictions without the death penalty have had lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty every year since 1990.
Then there are the horrific examples of people put to death for crimes they likely didn’t commit based on available evidence. It’s considered impossible in our legal system to exonerate people after they’ve been executed, but there are utterly chilling cases in which the imagination has to be stretched to logical failure to find the accused guilty.
We know the death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent. We know the death penalty isn’t required to keep society safe. We know innocent people have been executed.
I am not a pacifist. I do believe killing is a just act when done so against an immediate threat to human life, such as in self-defense or against violent repression. This is not a question of whether killing someone is always immoral; it’s a question of whether capital punishment is moral. The obvious answer: no, it is never moral.
It would seem to any reasonable adult that a “pro-life” framework would justly call for the abolition of the death penalty, which is why I have enormous respect for the consistency of the Catholic Church, even while I don’t agree with their official position on abortion rights.
The Vatican advocates for the sanctity of all human life while American religious fundamentalists—particularly evangelicals—seem laser-focused on abortion while removing that bedrock value from conversations on immigration, homelessness, mental health, health care broadly, gun violence, state violence, etc.
But that nuanced, adult conversation—so well expressed by Pope Leo—doesn’t fit on a bumpersticker or in a 240-character tweet or in a Republican fundraising email, and his insistence on Christ-like compassion and understanding for all people is at odds with the toddler reasoning of religious fundamentalists.
Yesterday, it was announced Sen. Durbin had respectfully declined the Lifetime Achievement Award in light of the controversy in an effort to avoid division in a moment of increasing political tension for our country. He prioritized the unity of our country and the Church over his own ego.
Cardinal Cupich said this in a statement on Sen. Durbin’s decision: “While I am saddened by this news, I respect his decision. But I want to make clear that the decision to present him an award was specifically in recognition of his singular contribution to immigration reform and his unwavering support of immigrants, which is so needed in our day.”
The Cardinal is being rather generous in his framing, so I’ll put it more bluntly:
While I respect good faith concern over abortion—even while I disagree—it is impossible for me to reach any other conclusion in this debate beyond the simple truth that religious fundamentalists clearly believe that the lives of some innocents matter more than others and cannot reconcile their chosen hierarchy of life with the teachings of Christ.
The truth hurts, and I hope it’s painful for them.
Thank you, Charlotte, for sharing what so many of us also see - the hypocrisy of many who call themselves "pro-life" - in such a detailed and thoughtful way. I so appreciate you and your insightful discussions you share with us.
If only they lived as true Christians.