Is Pope Leo Correct That To Support The Death Penalty Is Not “Pro-Life”?

Pope Leo XIV’s comments this week on the death penalty have many people examining what they believe about this issue, especially in light of the fact that Charlie Kirk’s alleged murderer may face the death penalty. In an interview reported by EWTN News, he declared: "Someone who says, 'I'm against abortion' but says, 'I'm in favor of the death penalty,' is not really pro-life." He then extended the same line of reasoning to immigration policy, suggesting that those who support the "inhuman treatment" of immigrants in the United States cannot truly claim to be pro-life.

It is a bold statement, but is it correct? Or more importantly, is it biblical?

For many Christians, Pope Leo's remarks raise serious questions about how the term "pro-life" should be defined. Is pro-life simply synonymous with being against abortion, or does it mean embracing a much broader political and theological agenda? And what happens when Scripture itself makes clear distinctions between the issues of protecting innocent life, upholding justice, and guarding national integrity?

The pope's words are not only controversial--they risk being theologically and intellectually dishonest. Here's why.

The first and most obvious problem is the false equivalence. Abortion always and deliberately takes the life of an innocent child made in the image of God. By contrast, the death penalty, biblically understood, is the execution of someone guilty of grave crimes such as murder. To conflate the two is to blur a line that God Himself draws in Scripture.

Genesis 9:6 is clear: "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." Here the sanctity of life is precisely the reason capital punishment is mandated. Taking innocent life is so serious that it requires ultimate accountability.

Pope Leo's framing makes it sound as though Christians who uphold capital punishment are being hypocritical. But the opposite is true: to oppose abortion and support the death penalty is not hypocrisy but consistency. One protects the innocent, the other punishes the guilty.

Romans 13:4 states plainly: "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

From Genesis to the New Testament, civil authority is entrusted with the sword precisely to uphold order and justice. The apostle Paul does not abolish the principle of capital punishment; rather, he affirms it as part of God's design for governments in a fallen world.

Christians may debate how and when the death penalty should be applied, but to suggest that any support for it is "not pro-life" ignores the weight of biblical teaching. Justice, mercy, and the sanctity of life are not at odds--they are woven together in God's Word.

One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is the potential for wrongful conviction. This is a sobering reality, and Christians should take it seriously. Scripture condemns false witnesses and miscarriages of justice (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).

Yet it is also worth noting that the misuse of justice does not invalidate the principle of justice itself. We do not abolish courts because courts sometimes err. Instead, we improve processes, demand higher standards of evidence, and work to ensure fairness. The possibility of mistakes calls for caution, not for rejecting God's clear moral framework.

The pope also criticized what he calls the "inhuman treatment" of immigrants in the United States, tying it to the same pro-life debate. But here again, the comparison falls apart.

First, immigration enforcement is not inhumane by definition. When individuals are in a country unlawfully, the government has the God-given duty to uphold the law. Many deportations involve not families seeking a better life, but hardened criminals--including violent offenders, drug traffickers, and even child predators. Is it "inhuman" to protect citizens from such dangers? Or is it, in fact, part of what it means to defend life?

Second, the very phrase "inhuman treatment" is rarely defined. Does it mean enforcing the law at all? Detaining criminals? Processing asylum claims in an orderly manner? Or is the pope equating the very concept of immigration enforcement with cruelty? If so, then his critique is misplaced.

Christians should indeed oppose true mistreatment of immigrants--abuse, neglect, or denial of basic human dignity is wrong. But there is a vast difference between mistreatment and lawful enforcement. Welcoming the stranger (Leviticus 19:34) does not mean erasing justice or abandoning order. A society that refuses to uphold the law does not show compassion--it creates chaos that ultimately harms both citizens and immigrants alike.

Of course, there is another argument often made: that Jesus Himself opposed the death penalty when He stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman in John 8. But notice--Jesus did not deny the legitimacy of the law; He exposed the hypocrisy of her accusers. The lesson was not that capital punishment is inherently unjust, but that human hearts are prone to misuse it.

The church's role is to preach the gospel of forgiveness, to call sinners to repentance, and to extend mercy where possible. The state's role, however, is to uphold justice. Christians are called to support both mercy and justice without confusing their boundaries.

Pope Leo's remarks attempt to bundle together every social issue under one umbrella definition of "pro-life." But Scripture does not treat abortion, capital punishment, and immigration as equivalent moral issues. Abortion is the direct killing of the innocent--always wrong. The death penalty is a form of justice against the guilty--permitted and even commanded by God in certain cases. Immigration policies, including deportation of criminals, fall under the prudence of governments tasked with order and protection.

To say a Christian must oppose all three in order to be truly pro-life is not only bad theology; it is bad reasoning. It collapses categories, confuses moral distinctions, and risks undermining the credibility of the pro-life cause by attaching it to every political debate.

The heart of the pro-life movement has always been the defense of the innocent unborn, who have no voice and no defense. Supporting the death penalty for murderers or enforcing immigration laws against violent offenders is not a denial of that ethic--it is, in fact, an extension of valuing justice, order, and the protection of the innocent.

Christians should reject the false choice Pope Leo presents. One can oppose abortion passionately, support the state's God-given authority to punish evildoers, and insist on lawful treatment of immigrants--all while being consistently pro-life. The true inconsistency lies not with those who uphold these distinctions, but with those who blur them for the sake of political rhetoric.

Pro-life is not about erasing justice. It is about affirming the sacredness of innocent life, standing for truth, and refusing to compromise with a culture that devalues both life and law. On that foundation, the Christian witness must remain clear and uncompromising.