Catholic, other faith leaders push Ohio lawmakers to end the death penalty
Faith leaders urged Ohio lawmakers to abolish capital punishment on May 4, 2026. The push comes as Ohio heads into its May 5 primary that will select candidates for the 2026 gubernatorial race. The state’s current governor, Mike DeWine, will leave office in January 2027, making the election pivotal for the death penalty debate. The article highlights the intersection of religious advocacy and state policy on the death penalty.
about 18 hours ago
Catholic and inter‑faith leaders have rallied Ohio’s lawmakers to abolish the state’s death penalty, issuing a widely signed letter ahead of the May 5 primary and invoking recent papal statements, Church teaching, and practical concerns about the justice system. 1 2 3 4
A joint letter, coordinated by Ohioans to Stop Executions (OTSE), was delivered on May 4 2026 to members of the Ohio General Assembly and Governor Mike DeWine. The petition gathered more than 500 signatures in one report and over 300 in another, representing clergy, deacons, religious sisters, Protestant pastors, rabbis, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and Unitarian Universalists. 1 2 3 4
Marsha Forson, associate director of Social Concerns for the Catholic Conference of Ohio, highlighted the Easter season as a moment for “conversion and repentance” and stressed that redemption must remain possible for all, including inmates. 1 2
The appeal arrives as Ohio prepares for its gubernatorial primary on May 5, which will determine the nominees for the November election to succeed Gov. Mike DeWine. DeWine, a Catholic, has avoided stating his position on capital punishment but indicated he would do so after the primary. 1 2 4
DeWine has postponed every execution since taking office in 2019, and the last execution in Ohio occurred in 2018. Opponents hope his final months in office will bring an official abolition. 1
The letter asserts that the death penalty “serves no moral purpose,” calling it a “hollow instrument of death” that offers no redemption, closure, or transformation. It also argues that the practice diverts financial and human resources that could better support victims and co‑victims of crime. 2 3 4
Rich Nathan, founding pastor of Vineyard Columbus, appealed to pro‑life supporters of all persuasions, noting the system’s inconsistency and the impossibility of guaranteeing a flawless verdict when a human life is at stake. 1
The Catholic Magisterium declares capital punishment “inadmissible” in modern society, a stance clarified in the 2018 revision of the Catechism and reiterated in Pope Francis’s 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti. 1
Pope Leo XIV, in a video marking the 15th anniversary of Illinois’s abolition of the death penalty, urged activists worldwide to continue the effort, emphasizing the dignity of every person. 2 4
Faith leaders pointed to House Bill 72, currently before a House committee, which would abolish the death penalty in Ohio while also prohibiting state funding for abortion or assisted suicide. Brian Hickey, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Ohio, described the bill as a “unique opportunity” to end the “culture of death.” 2 4
Attorney General Dave Yost, however, has argued that the moratorium on executions “makes a mockery of the justice system and of the dead and their families,” pushing for the resumption of executions. 1
While the bishops of Ohio issued a separate statement in late March urging abolition, they did not sign the OTSE letter. Nonetheless, the collective inter‑faith effort underscores a growing consensus across religious traditions that state‑sanctioned killing conflicts with core moral teachings. 2 3 4
Investigate Catholic doctrine on capital punishment and legislative influence
Catholic teaching affirms that legitimate public authority may impose penalties for grave crimes, but it consistently insists that the purpose of punishment is ordered to the common good and that directly taking a person’s life is morally permissible only under very strict conditions. In recent magisterial teaching, the Church judges capital punishment “inadmissible” because, in practice, society can protect itself through bloodless means, and because the death penalty gravely undermines the dignity of the person even after serious wrongdoing.
The Catechism grounds Catholic moral evaluation of punishment in the divine command: “God alone is the Lord of life… no one can… claim… the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
It also clarifies that the prohibition “You shall not kill” forbids direct and intentional killing, while allowing that legitimate defense has a different moral structure: it has a “double effect,” in which the preservation of one’s life is intended and the killing of the aggressor is not the intended end.
This matters for capital punishment because it forces the Church to ask not only “is the state allowed to punish?” but also whether executing a person is an appropriate and proportionate means to the aims of punishment, given the sacredness and inalienable dignity of human life.
The Catechism teaches that legitimate authority has a right and duty to impose penalties that are commensurate with the gravity of the crime, with the primary scope of redressing the disorder caused by the offense.
It further explains punishment has a “medicinal scope”: “as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.”
John Paul II develops this in Evangelium Vitae: public authority must seek an adequate punishment as a condition for the offender to regain freedom, while also defending public order and ensuring safety—and therefore the “nature and extent” of punishment must be carefully evaluated and should not be pushed to extremes.
In short, Catholic doctrine does not treat punishment as vengeance. It treats punishment as justice ordered toward restoration, correction, and protection.
The Catechism states that traditional teaching does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, presupposing full ascertainment of identity and responsibility and only when it is the only practicable way to defend human lives against the aggressor.
However, it then gives the decisive practical-moral criterion: if “bloodless means are sufficient,” authority should limit itself to them because they better correspond to the common good and dignity of the person.
It adds that, “today… cases of absolute necessity… are very rare, if not practically non-existent,” citing John Paul II’s explanation in Evangelium Vitae.
In this context, “absolute necessity” is not a vague feeling that a sentence “should be” severe. It means:
John Paul II teaches that punishment should not go “to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity,” and then adds that, due to improvements in penal systems, such cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
He also explicitly reiterates the principle that if bloodless means suffice, public authority must use them because they better align with:
In Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis goes further and treats the matter as a settled moral development in modern conditions: