OPINION — Published May 22, 2026 · By Roe Baynes · 4 Min Read
A lifelong Catholic responds to the Pope’s comments on life, death, and consistency
Pope Leo XIV recently entered a heated American Catholic debate, telling reporters that “someone who says ‘I’m against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life.” As a lifelong Catholic and follower of Christ’s teachings, I find this statement not only disappointing — but theologically and logically mistaken.
With all due respect to the Holy Father, his Chicago roots may be showing more than his papal authority here.
Let me be direct: I am both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, and I reject the premise that holding pro-life and pro death penalty positions simultaneously is contradictory. The so-called “pro-life” label, while politically useful, has always been specifically and contextually about one thing — opposition to abortion. It is not, and has never been, a sweeping philosophical commitment to preserving every human life under every circumstance. Likewise, “pro-choice” is not truly about bodily autonomy — the same voices that championed that framing were often the loudest advocates for vaccine mandates and passports during COVID, stripping that very autonomy away. For instance, Marvel actress Evangeline Lilly — a self-described pro-choice advocate — attended an anti-vaccine mandate rally in Washington D.C. invoking “bodily sovereignty,” and was immediately met with fierce public backlash — pilloried by the very community that claims to champion bodily autonomy. If the principle were genuine, she’d have been celebrated. These are political brands, not philosophical frameworks.
The unifying principle behind opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty is not a contradiction, it is the protection of the innocent. Unborn children are wholly innocent and incapable of defending themselves. They deserve protection. This same logic applies to the Second Amendment debate — critics argue you cannot be pro-life and pro-gun because guns kill people. But that misses the point entirely. Guns are a tool, and in the right hands they exist to protect the innocent and the helpless. The through line across all three positions — anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-Second Amendment — is the same unwavering principle: protect those who cannot protect themselves. Convicted murderers and rapists, by contrast, have forfeited their claim to society’s protection by violently stripping it from others. As El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has rightly argued, the left obsesses over the rights of criminals while ignoring the rights of law-abiding citizens to live in peace and safety. Bukele stated during his UN General Assembly Speech “In El Salvador, we prioritized the security of our honest citizens over the comfort of criminals. Some say that we have imprisoned thousands, but the reality is that we have liberated millions.” Bukele also said in an X post “It’s clear that so called “human rights” organizations don’t consider not being killed, raped, or assaulted to be human rights, otherwise, they’d be praising us for achieving exactly that.”
On abortion specifically: unborn babies are innocent and deserve to be protected. Life begins at conception — that is not a political opinion, it is a biological and moral reality. I do believe in narrow exceptions — cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal deformities, or serious risks to the mother’s health — but these must be addressed early, before the child can feel pain or suffering. Critically, these cases represent a tiny minority of abortions performed. The vast majority — roughly 99% — are elective. We can debate exactly where to draw the line, but a line must be drawn. A society that normalizes ending pregnancies in the third trimester, or up to the moment of birth, has lost its moral compass. We should instead be a society that promotes personal responsibility, safe sex, and contraception — not one that treats abortion as the first option for contraception.
Does the death penalty risk executing the innocent? Yes — and that is a serious and legitimate concern that I do not dismiss lightly. Blackstone’s formulation holds that it is better for ten guilty men to escape than for one innocent person to suffer — and Benjamin Franklin took that principle even further, arguing the ratio should be one hundred to one. Both formulations remind us why our legal system demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that standard must be rigorously upheld. Otto von Bismarck, however, took the opposite view — that it is better for innocent men to suffer than for the guilty to escape justice, a position more aligned with Bukele’s zero-tolerance approach to violent crime. The Cato Institute has documented all three perspectives as part of the ongoing tension between civil liberties and public safety. Reasonable people can disagree on where that line sits — but the existence of imperfection in a system does not make the system itself immoral.
As for the Christian objection — “thou shalt not murder” — it’s worth noting that Scripture itself endorses capital punishment for the gravest crimes. Religion and government are two different domains. Our government’s duty is to protect the innocent, punish the wicked, and maintain an ordered and just society.
Pope Leo, I would also gently suggest this: if we are discussing consistency, one cannot credibly call oneself a Christian while supporting legal abortion. That position stands in direct opposition to the sanctity of life from conception — a teaching far more central to Christian doctrine than the question of state punishment.
I disagree with you, Holy Father. Not out of disrespect, but out of conviction. Holding a pro-life and death penalty stance is not a contradiction. These positions are rooted in the same moral soil — the belief that innocent life is sacred and worthy of fierce protection.
