The always-wrong, woke Pope Leo XIV faced sharp criticism yet again after he defended the life of the Fort Hood shooter – Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded another 32 at a Texas Army base in 2009 – by denouncing capital punishment. The first American Pope has not faced such blowback since he suggested America open its borders to billions of third-world immigrants since they were created in God’s image too.
For context on the latest self-imposed Vatican hullabaloo, the Trump administration announced this week that the Muslim terrorist who massacred over a dozen people, including a pregnant woman and her unborn child, would have an execution date set for the atrocity he committed. Nearly 17 years later to the day of the November 5th, 2009 attack, it was announced justice would be served.
“Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has recommended — and President Donald J. Trump has approved — death by U.S. Army firing squad for convicted terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the jihadist who opened fire on unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009. He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others while shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the attack,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell wrote on X, adding the next steps: “The Secretary of the Army will set the time and place of the execution. Judgement day for Hasan has finally come.”
Reacting to that news was the woke Pope. “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 protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption,” he absurdly claimed.
Of course, as with all leftist discourse there is nary even a mention of the victims in the killing; rather, only concern for the person facing accountability. And indeed, suggesting he deserves to live while the people he killed do not is simply incompatible with Christian morality. Redemption for Hasan will be between him and his Creator; on Planet Earth, no redemption is possible.
As a follow-up, conservative voices spoke up pointing out as much. “Here’s the problem with the Pope,” the user Jason Howerton wrote. “The Bible is very clear that capital punishment IS permissible. You can’t get around it. In fact, the Catholic Church has historically accepted capital punishment. The Papal States even PERFORMED The executions until 1870.”
“So according to Pope Leo, one of the following has to be true,” he continued before presenting three distinct options. “1. He is wrong. 2. The Catholic Church once was living open in defiance of God. 3. God’s nature changes and though capital punishment was once allowed, He changed His mind because our society is so modern now,” he declared.
Another comment chimed in on the controversy, saying not only should they be done but that if they are they should be a matter of public consumption. “If we’re going to do death sentences at all, they should generally be done publicly. Amongst hunters there’s a common disdain for people who wince at the thought of shooting Bambi, but are happy to buy meat at the grocery store,” he began.
“Public executions are kind of like that. Many Americans want criminals to be ‘taken care of,’ but it has to be done far away, in a clinical manner, where we don’t have to confront the reality of what occurs. You may tell yourself that the modern approach is nicer, and more merciful. But really, you prefer it because it doesn’t make you feel as uncomfortable,” he continued.
“In the old American way doing things, the criminal often had a chance to give last words. Perhaps ask people forgiveness, or say a final, desperate prayer. Often a minister would attend, and say – without irony – ‘May God have mercy on your soul,’” he added.
“It was a public ritual that respected the gravity of sending a soul to eternity. It gave satisfaction to directly aggrieved parties. It gave broader reassurance in the rule of law. And yes, it deterred would-be criminals. Which approach seems more humane?” he finished.