EWTN News reports that the U.S. Supreme Court, in an unsigned order on May 21, 2026, rejected Alabama’s appeal to execute Joseph Clifton Smith, a convicted murderer whose IQ in the low 70s placed him within the range of intellectual disability protected from capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling, stemming from the 2002 *Atkins v. Virginia* decision, effectively barred Smith’s execution. EWTN further notes that Pope Leo XIV has spoken against the death penalty, arguing that “human life is to be respected” and that capital punishment is incompatible with a pro-life philosophy. While the Church has historically permitted the death penalty under strict conditions, this ruling and the conciliar “popes'” stance reflect a dangerous shift toward a secular, naturalistic humanism that undermines divine justice and the authority of the state to punish grave crimes.
The Secularization of Justice: From Divine Law to Human Sentiment
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Joseph Clifton Smith represents yet another step in the relentless secularization of justice, a process that has accelerated since the mid-20th century. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment,” originally intended to guard against barbaric and disproportionate penalties, has been reinterpreted by modern jurisprudence to encompass a subjective and evolving standard of decency. This judicial activism, far from being a neutral application of constitutional principles, reflects a profound shift in the understanding of the state’s authority and its relationship to the moral law.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the state’s authority to punish, including by death, is not merely a pragmatic concession to social order but a participation in God’s own justice. As Pope Pius XI unequivocally stated in his encyclical *Quas Primas* (1925), Christ the King possesses “executive power, for all must obey His commands, and this under the threat of announced punishments, which the obstinate cannot escape.” This divine mandate extends to legitimate earthly authorities, who act as “ministers of God” (Romans 13:4) in avenging wrath upon those who do evil. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explicitly affirms that the civil power, “by its authority, may lawfully put malefactors to death,” for “the punishment of the wicked is not only lawful but is also a work of obedience to the Fifth Commandment.”
The modern aversion to capital punishment, often cloaked in the language of “human rights” and “dignity,” is a direct consequence of the rejection of this divine order. It elevates human sentiment and a flawed understanding of compassion above the immutable demands of justice. When EWTN quotes Theresa Farnan, a philosopher on the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, stating that “the burden on us as a society is even more pronounced to be radically pro-life” in cases like Smith’s, it reveals a fundamental confusion. True pro-life philosophy is not an absolute prohibition on all taking of life but a recognition that life is sacred and must be protected, which includes protecting the innocent from those who would take their lives unjustly. The execution of a duly convicted murderer, far from being an affront to human dignity, is an act of justice that upholds the sanctity of the victim’s life and the common good.
The Conciliar “Popes” and the Erosion of Doctrine
The article’s mention of “Pope Leo XIV” speaking out against the death penalty is a stark illustration of the doctrinal erosion within the conciliar sect. While the Church has always taught the inviolability of innocent human life, her tradition, rooted in Scripture and the Fathers, has also affirmed the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain conditions. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, argues in the *Summa Theologiae* (II-II, q. 64, a. 2) that “the death inflicted by the judge for the purpose of justice is not murder, but rather the act of a sovereign power that has received its authority from God.” He further states that “a man who, by committing a crime, has become a destroyer of the common good, may be justly killed.”
The shift in the conciar “popes'” teaching, from John Paul II’s *Evangelium Vitae* (1995) to the present, represents a departure from this perennial doctrine. While earlier papal statements acknowledged the theoretical right of the state to execute but argued for its practical limitation in modern times, the current rhetoric, as attributed to Leo XIV, suggests an incompatibility with a “pro-life philosophy.” This is a subtle but significant move towards an absolute prohibition, which finds no support in the Church’s traditional teaching. It reflects the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu* (1907), which rejected the proposition that “truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Proposition 58). The “evolution” of doctrine on capital punishment is not a development but a corruption, a capitulation to the spirit of the age.
The Myth of “Intellectual Disability” and Moral Responsibility
The legal concept of “intellectual disability” as a blanket exemption from capital punishment is fraught with theological and philosophical difficulties. While the Church teaches that those who lack the use of reason due to a permanent condition cannot be guilty of mortal sin, the determination of such a condition is a complex matter that cannot be reduced to an arbitrary IQ score. The Supreme Court’s reliance on a “cutoff” IQ of 70-75, as cited in *Atkins v. Virginia*, is a purely secular and materialist criterion that fails to account for the spiritual dimensions of moral responsibility.
From a Catholic perspective, the capacity for moral agency is not solely determined by cognitive function but by the possession of a rational soul and the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences of one’s actions. A person with a low IQ may still possess sufficient reason to understand the gravity of murder and to be held accountable for it. The EWTN article quotes Farnan as saying, “It’s obvious to me he could not grasp the gravity of his crimes,” but this is a subjective assessment, not a theological or legal certainty. The Church has always left such judgments to the prudential wisdom of the civil authority, guided by the principles of justice, not to the shifting sands of psychological expertise.
Furthermore, the focus on the perpetrator’s intellectual capacity, while important, should not overshadow the demands of justice for the victim. Durk Van Dam, the brutal victim of Smith’s crime, had an inherent right to life that was violently extinguished. The state’s primary duty is to protect its citizens and to vindicate the rights of the innocent. To exempt a murderer from the ultimate penalty solely on the basis of a low IQ, without a clear demonstration of a complete lack of moral agency, is to prioritize the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victim and the common good.
The Silence on the Supernatural and the Primacy of Charity
Perhaps the most glaring omission in both the EWTN article and the conciliar “popes'” statements is any mention of the supernatural order. The discussion is framed entirely within the naturalistic categories of “human rights,” “dignity,” and “pro-life philosophy,” with no reference to the eternal consequences of sin, the necessity of repentance, or the ultimate judgment of God. This silence is characteristic of the modernist mentality, which, as St. Pius X warned in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis* (1907), reduces religion to a matter of sentiment and social utility, stripping it of its supernatural character.
The Church’s traditional teaching on the death penalty is not rooted in a spirit of vengeance but in a profound understanding of justice and charity. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, the death penalty, when justly inflicted, is an act of charity towards the criminal, as it removes him from the occasion of further sin and offers him an opportunity to repent and save his soul. It is also an act of charity towards society, as it removes a dangerous element and deters others from committing similar crimes. The modern aversion to capital punishment, by contrast, is often motivated by a false sense of compassion that prioritizes the temporal well-being of the criminal over his eternal salvation and the safety of the community.
The conciliar “popes'” emphasis on “human life” as an abstract principle, divorced from its supernatural context, is a hallmark of the “cult of man” condemned by Pope Pius XI in *Quas Primas*. He lamented that “when God and Jesus Christ – as we lamented – were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The current discourse on the death penalty, both in the secular courts and within the conciar sect, is a direct consequence of this removal of Christ from public life. It represents a return to the errors of liberalism and rationalism condemned in *The Syllabus of Errors* (1864), which rejected the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80).
Conclusion: A Call to Return to Tradition
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Joseph Clifton Smith and the conciliar “popes'” opposition to the death penalty are not isolated events but symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise. They reflect a world that has rejected the kingship of Christ and substituted human sentiment for divine law, naturalistic humanism for supernatural charity, and the shifting opinions of men for the unchanging truth of the Gospel.
For Catholics who remain faithful to the integral teaching of the Church, these developments serve as a stark reminder of the urgent need to return to tradition. This means reaffirming the legitimacy of the death penalty as an instrument of divine justice, as taught by Scripture, the Fathers, and the perennial Magisterium. It means rejecting the modernist errors that have infiltrated the conciar sect and led it into a dead end of doctrinal confusion and moral compromise. And it means praying for the restoration of the social reign of Christ the King, in which alone true justice and peace can be found. As Pope Pius XI declared, “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” Until this reign is acknowledged and upheld, both in the state and in the Church, the culture of death will continue to advance, and the blood of the innocent will cry out for justice.
Source:
Alabama cannot execute convicted murderer with low IQ after Supreme Court ruling (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 21.05.2026