I want to begin with respect. I (a Jewish believer in Jesus) don’t necessarily agree with all Catholic doctrine, but I have no issues with Catholics as people of faith. In fact, I count several Catholics among my personal friends, including Archbishop Cardinal Pizzaballa, whom I have great respect for. I have found the Catholic attitude to be among the most humble and Christlike of any Christian tradition. I also deeply respect the way the Catholic Church has repented and transformed in the past 70 years, especially its public repentance to the Jewish people. Pope John Paul II, for example, reaffirmed the dignity of Israel as the Chosen People, a gesture that cannot be underestimated in its historical and theological significance.

Yet, while I admire much, I cannot agree with everything. One recent statement by Pope Leo struck me as well-intentioned but deeply flawed:

“Someone who says ‘I’m against abortion but I’m in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life.”¹

The Logical Fallacy

With all due respect, this is a logical fallacy. It equates two very different realities under the same term, “life.” The unborn baby is innocent; he or she has committed no crime and bears no guilt (unless, of course, you are a Calvinist who believes in “Total Depravity”). To end the life of an unborn child is not punishment — it is often murder.

The criminal who rapes, tortures, and then murders innocent people, however, has forfeited his right to life. Life is indeed a gift, but in a moral universe, it is also a privilege, and privileges can be lost. The Bible makes this clear by instituting the death penalty in Israel’s law (e.g., Exodus 21:12). The very purpose was not revenge but to uphold the dignity of life, to deter malevolent behavior, and to protect society from those who despise its most vulnerable members.

The Apostle Paul echoes this in Romans 13:4, reminding us that “the authority does not bear the sword in vain,” but is a servant of God to “execute wrath on the wrongdoer.” The sword is not a decoration—it is an instrument of justice.

The God of Both Testaments

Some argue that the Old Testament’s use of the death penalty no longer applies, since God in the New Testament is “gentler” or “pacifist.” But this, too, is a misconception. Scripture is unambiguous:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

God did not change His nature between Malachi and Matthew. His holiness, His justice, and His love remain consistent. The New Testament itself records examples of divine capital punishment:

• In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira are struck down for lying to the Holy Spirit.
• In Acts 13, Elymas the magician is struck blind for opposing the gospel.
• In Acts 12, King Herod accepts worship as if he were a god, and “an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.”

Divine judgment did not vanish with the New Covenant.

The Practical Problem

Beyond theology, there is also a practical reality. Imagine a nation attacked by a terrorist army that rapes, murders, and brutalizes civilians. Suppose that nation captures 100,000 terrorists alive. If the state abolishes the death penalty, it must keep them imprisoned for life—at a cost of billions in taxpayer funds. That means punishing the victims all over again, forcing them to pay for the survival of those who destroyed their families. Is this just? Or merciful?

Justice that endlessly delays or refuses to hold the guilty accountable is not mercy—it is cruelty to the innocent.

Violence Is Not Always Evil

This is where many modern discussions falter: they assume that all violence is inherently evil. But Scripture teaches otherwise. Violence, like fire, is morally neutral—it depends on how it is used. A parent who fights off a wild animal to protect their child is not cruel but loving. A father who shoots a terrorist trying to kill his family is not violent but loving, because love protects.

The issue is not violence itself, but whether it is wielded in righteousness or in cruelty. God’s use of force is never arbitrary; it is always purposeful—meant to protect, preserve, or purge evil for the sake of greater good.

As Paul reminds us, “Love always protects” (1 Corinthians 13:7). The Greek word stegei means to cover, to shelter, or to defend. Love is not weak. Love is fierce. Love does not merely comfort emotionally or only offer sentiment—it shields, stands in the gap, and confronts evil when necessary.

A Different Definition of “Pro-Life”

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Pope Leo’s definition of what it means to be “pro-life.” To be pro-life is to value innocent life as sacred. That includes defending the unborn, the vulnerable, and the weak. But it does not mean shielding those who destroy life from the consequences of their own actions.

The Bible’s vision of life is holistic: life is a gift, yes, but it is also bound up with justice, accountability, and moral order. To deny this truth is to cheapen the very dignity of life we claim to defend.

1. Pope Leo’s statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aLV5xJPiq8 ↩︎