EWTN News portal reports that Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a self-identified Catholic, has called for the abolition of the death penalty in his state, claiming that “the moral justification I had for voting for the death penalty simply no longer exists.” This statement, wrapped in the language of personal conscience and pragmatic utilitarianism, reveals a profound rupture with the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church and the natural law. What presents itself as a “courageous” moral evolution is, in reality, the capitulation of a Catholic politician to the spirit of the age — the very modernist spirit condemned by St. Pius X as the synthesis of all errors.
The Abandonment of the Natural Law and Divine Justice
Governor DeWine’s argument rests entirely on utilitarian and pragmatic grounds: the death penalty, he claims, is not a “deterrent,” the chances of execution are “remote,” and the psychological toll on execution staff is “indescribable.” He explicitly states: “For the state to take a human life, there … must be evidence that in doing so, it will help protect the public [and] that the threat of that action will deter someone from committing murder.”
This reasoning is not Catholic. It is the language of secular humanism, which subordinates the moral order to empirical calculations and emotional sentiment. The Catholic Church has always taught that the death penalty is not merely a pragmatic tool of deterrence but an act of retributive justice — a recognition of the objective moral order established by God, whereby the deliberate taking of innocent human life demands a proportionate response from the legitimate authority.
The natural law, which is itself a participation in the eternal law of God, dictates that the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Murder — the direct and deliberate destruction of an innocent human person made in the image of God — is the gravest of crimes against the natural order. The state, as the custodian of the common good and the minister of God’s justice (Romans 13:1-4), possesses the authority to inflict the ultimate penalty when the circumstances demand it. This is not a matter of “deterrence” in the utilitarian sense but of justice — of restoring the balance of the moral order that has been shattered by the crime.
The Magisterial Teaching: Unchanging and Unequivocal
What is most striking about Governor DeWine’s position is its direct contradiction of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium — not merely in the modern era, but throughout the centuries. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993), even in its revised and weakened form, states: “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, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor” (CCC 2267).
Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), affirmed the universal kingship of Christ over all nations and all aspects of public life, including the administration of justice. The reign of Christ the King is not a sentimental abstraction — it demands that the moral law, including the law of retribution, be upheld by civil society. To abolish the death penalty on the grounds that it is “no longer morally justified” is to implicitly deny that the moral law has any objective, unchanging content — the very essence of modernist moral relativism.
Pope St. Pius X, in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), condemned the modernist proposition that “the progress of sciences requires a reform of the concept of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, Revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption” (Proposition 64). If the very concept of Christian doctrine must evolve with the “progress” of human knowledge, then the moral teaching on justice and punishment is equally subject to revision. Governor DeWine’s appeal to “growing recognition” and a “more just and life-affirming approach” is precisely this modernist hermeneutic applied to the question of capital punishment.
The “Catholic” Facade: Faith as Private Sentiment
The response of the Catholic Mobilizing Network — an anti-death penalty advocacy group — is equally revealing. Krisanne Vaillancourt Murphy, its executive director, praised DeWine’s statement as “an encouraging sign and reflects growing recognition that the state can move toward a more just and life-affirming approach.” She further noted: “Gov. DeWine is a Catholic whose faith has always inspired his public service.”
This is the language of the dictatorship of relativism — the reduction of Catholic faith to a vague inspiration for political positions that are, in substance, indistinguishable from secular progressivism. The “faith” that “inspires” Governor DeWine to reject the death penalty is not the faith of the Church Fathers, the Council of Trent, or the perennial Magisterium. It is a privatized, subjective faith that conforms to the prevailing sentiments of the cultural elite.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). The “progress” that Governor DeWine embraces — the abolition of the death penalty on utilitarian and sentimental grounds — is precisely the kind of “progress” that the Church has consistently identified as a departure from the moral order.
The Forgotten Victims and the Inversion of Justice
Governor DeWine acknowledges the “horror and the anger that we all feel in regard to these murderers” and the “deep sorrow we feel for the victims and for their families.” Yet this acknowledgment is hollow — a rhetorical gesture that serves to mask the fundamental inversion of justice at the heart of his position.
The death penalty is not primarily about the feelings of the executioner, the psychological comfort of prison staff, or even the “deterrent” effect on potential criminals. It is about justice — about the recognition that the deliberate murder of an innocent human being is an offense against the natural order so grave that it demands the ultimate punishment. To abolish the death penalty because it is “too difficult” for those who carry it out is to place the comfort of the executioner above the justice owed to the victim and the moral order established by God.
The Code of Canon Law (1917), in Canon 188.4, recognizes that public defection from the Catholic faith results in the automatic loss of ecclesiastical office. The principle is clear: actions have consequences, and the gravity of the offense determines the gravity of the penalty. If a public defection from the faith results in the loss of office ipso facto, how much more grave is the deliberate murder of an innocent human person?
The Symptom of a Deeper Apostasy
Governor DeWine’s position is not an isolated error. It is a symptom of the broader apostasy that has infected the Church and the world since the modernist revolution of the twentieth century. The same spirit that has emptied churches, corrupted the liturgy, and reduced the faith to a vague humanitarianism is now at work in the political sphere, demanding that the moral law be subjected to the dictates of “progress” and “compassion.”
The Catholic Church has always taught that the state has the authority to impose the death penalty for grave crimes. This teaching is rooted in Scripture (Genesis 9:6, Romans 13:1-4), the natural law, and the consistent tradition of the Church. To reject this teaching is not merely to disagree with a particular policy — it is to reject the authority of the Church and the moral order established by God.
Governor DeWine’s appeal to “growing recognition” and “moral justification” is the language of the modernist who places his own conscience above the teaching authority of the Church. It is the language of the autonomous self — the very heresy that St. Pius X identified as the root of all modern errors.
Conclusion: The Duty of Catholic Resistance
The abolition of the death penalty is not a “more just and life-affirming approach.” It is a capitulation to the spirit of the age — a denial of the natural law, a rejection of the Church’s teaching authority, and an inversion of justice that places the comfort of the executioner and the sentiments of the cultural elite above the rights of the victim and the moral order.
Catholics who hold public office have a duty to uphold the moral law, not to conform it to the prevailing sentiments of the age. Governor DeWine’s position is not “courageous” — it is a betrayal of the faith he professes and the moral order he is sworn to uphold. The true “moral justification” for the death penalty is not found in utilitarian calculations or psychological comfort — it is found in the eternal and unchanging law of God, which demands that justice be done, even when it is difficult, even when it is unpopular, and even when it is unfashionable.
As Pope Pius XI declared in Quas Primas: “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, because the main reason why some have the right to command and others have the duty to obey was removed.” The abolition of the death penalty is but one more step in the removal of Christ from the laws and states of men — and it must be resisted by all who profess the integral Catholic faith.
Source:
Ohio Gov. DeWine urges state to abolish death penalty, says there is no ‘moral justification’ for it (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 16.06.2026