US Archbishop Coakley: Livestreaming execution promotes a ‘culture of death’
Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned plans to livestream Nidal Hassan’s execution, calling it a promotion of a “culture of death.”. Coakley said a public execution would damage the nation’s moral fabric and urged the country to choose life, while acknowledging that Hassan’s crimes cannot be condoned. The Pentagon scheduled Hassan’s execution by firing squad for December 3, 2026, at Fort Hood, pending possible legal proceedings; it would be the US military’s first execution since 1961. The UN human rights office criticized the livestream plan, saying broadcasting an execution would violate the absolute prohibition of torture.
about 9 hours ago
Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned plans to livestream the execution of former Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, calling the decision a “barbaric promotion of a culture of death.” The execution is scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood, Texas, though legal proceedings could delay it. 2 4
Coakley said he received the news with “shock and great sorrow.” While stressing that Hasan’s actions could not be condoned, he argued that publicly broadcasting his execution would damage the nation’s moral fabric and burden the public conscience. He invoked Romans 12:17—“do not repay anyone evil for evil”—and prayed that the country would choose life, even in difficult circumstances. 2 4
President Donald Trump approved Hasan’s execution by firing squad on the recommendation of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Hegseth said the execution would be public and later reaffirmed the livestream plan; the Army set the execution for December 3 at Fort Hood. 4 6
Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 in the November 5, 2009, shooting at Fort Hood. If carried out, the execution would be the first by the U.S. military since 1961 and the military’s first firing-squad execution since 1945; it would also be the first U.S. execution livestreamed to the public, according to OSV News. 2 4
Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, also opposed the plan, citing Catholic teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible and saying the Church seeks clemency even for people convicted of the most heinous crimes. The Catholic Mobilizing Network criticized both the execution and its proposed broadcast, arguing that presenting a person’s death as something to watch or celebrate would violate human dignity and would not honor victims or bring healing. 6
The articles describe the Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment as broader than objections to livestreaming. They cite the Catechism’s teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, and the Church’s call for its abolition. 4 6
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also criticized the livestream plan, telling AFP that broadcasting an execution live would amount to a public execution and violate the absolute prohibition of torture. OSV News noted that the last public execution in the United States took place in Missouri in 1937. 2 4*
Capital punishment tests the state’s respect for human dignity
Capital punishment is a particularly stark test of whether a state treats human dignity as inherent—or as something a person can forfeit through wrongdoing. Catholic teaching insists that even a person guilty of a grave crime retains personal dignity; punishment must therefore uphold justice and protect the public without treating the offender as disposable.
That concern does not diminish the suffering of victims and their families. The Church calls for their care and for justice, while also holding that justice need not mean execution. Pope John Paul II emphasized that punishment should defend society, redress the harm, and leave room for rehabilitation; when non-lethal means can protect people, they better accord with human dignity.
The Church’s current teaching is stronger still: the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, and because criminal justice systems can be fallible and selectively applied. Thus the state’s response to even terrible violence becomes a measure of its own moral commitments: it must defend the community and honor victims without declaring that any human life has become disposable.