Diocese of Gary

(OSV News) - Bishop Robert J. McClory of Gary, Indiana, believes his ministry, in both his prayer and his teaching, "compels" him to lead people "to a deeper appreciation of the value of every human life, including those who have committed horrible crimes."

"Not only is the Church's teaching on the dignity of life so vital at this time, there's also been a greater public awareness of the death penalty due to shocking events recently," Bishop McClory said, referring to a botched execution in Tennessee and a proposed and later canceled livestream of a military execution.

The bishop made the comments in an interview ahead of the Nov. 5 execution of convicted child killer Jeffrey Weisheit at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, which sits in the Diocese of Gary. He was found guilty in 2013 of murdering his girlfriend's two young children in a 2010 house fire.

Weisheit, 50, died by a lethal injection of pentobarbital, with the process starting shortly after midnight, according to news reports. The time of death was officially pronounced at 12:45 a.m. (CST) on Nov. 5.

Bishop McClory spoke with Daniel B. Gallagher, a lecturer in philosophy and literature at Ralston College in Savannah, Georgia, in a wide-ranging audio interview about Weisheit's case, the death penalty, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the teaching of modern popes, including Pope Leo XIV, on the death penalty, pastoral outreach to prisoners and Christ as "our salvation" and "the source of mercy."

An edited excerpt of the conversation follows:

Daniel B. Gallagher: Your Excellency, you recently released a video in which you call for the repeal of Mr. Jeffrey Weisheit's death sentence. Mr. Weisheit has been a prisoner in your diocese since his conviction on two counts of murder in 2013, and his execution is scheduled for November 5th. You've joined others in praying outside the Indiana State Prison four times since becoming bishop of the Diocese of Gary. Why do you think your presence there has been so important?

Bishop Robert J. McClory: I believe my ministry compels me to lead people -- both in prayer and in my teaching -- to a deeper appreciation of the value of every human life, including those who have committed horrible crimes. I must admit that I grew up in a state that didn't have the death penalty. Coming to Indiana, my eyes were opened to how crucial this issue is for me and my flock.

Not only is the Church's teaching on the dignity of life so vital at this time, there's also been a greater public awareness of the death penalty due to shocking events recently. We had what can euphemistically be called a botched attempt at an execution in Tennessee. The woman survived and was admitted to a hospital. It made us all think: What are we doing here?

We also faced the real possibility not only of an execution by firing squad, but a livestream of it. So, I think people were suddenly shocked by the horror of both the death penalty and the crimes that led to its implementation, and this has prompted everyone to think about the issue in a new way.

In fact, my state has had some politically conservative legislators who have had a change of heart and are actively seeking the abolishment of the death penalty.

Gallagher: Are you referring to the letter written by two Indiana state representatives to the governor?

Bishop McClory: Yes, that's just one significant sign of the reflection now going on. Not only did the signatories quote Paul's Letter to the Romans, they were also clearly inspired by the teaching of St. Pope John Paul II on the dignity of human life. Indeed, I think it's fair to credit Pope John Paul II and Pope Leo XIV for a resurgence in attention to this issue.

Gallagher: I wholly agree, Your Excellency. You know, people often think Pope Francis made a sudden change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2018 when he amended paragraph 2267 to read "the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." But having been involved in the work behind that change, it was clear to me that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were wholly bent in the direction of the current teaching of paragraph 2267. The accompanying letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains why.

Your Excellency, it concerns me that there are circumstances surrounding Mr. Weisheit's case in your diocese that can detract from the main issue. The victim's father has begged for clemency, Mr. Weisheit claims he's had a conversion, a few state representatives -- as you've mentioned -- have expressed a change of heart, and so on. But the central issue is the inviolable dignity of every human life. The focal point should be on the current teaching of paragraph 2267 of the catechism. Do you agree?

Bishop McClory: I do. I think it's very clear that if in the past there were circumstances in which the death penalty was permitted, the concept of "inadmissibility" now seems appropriate since it's difficult to conceive of a circumstance in which the death penalty could be permitted. If we value the dignity of every human life, then we must say it's our role to protect life.

Indeed, the circumstances under which another human life can be taken are narrow. Quite simply, if we believe in the dignity of every human person, then we believe in the dignity of every human person. We shouldn't look to death as a means of solving the problem.

Gallagher: I think you're making an important point, Your Excellency. In other words, even though in former times the Church taught that capital punishment could be invoked legitimately, it did not teach that capital punishment was in itself a "bonum" -- i.e., a "good." Rather, it was an instrument to promote the "bonum commune" -- i.e., the "common good."
There's some similarity here with the Church's teaching on just war. I've heard some explain that teaching as if war is sometimes a "good." That's simply not accurate. The question for St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, was "utrum bellare semper sit peccatum" -- "whether war is always a sin." It's a subtle but crucial distinction, and it's of utmost importance that we remain attentive to it when reflecting on how Catholic doctrine can develop on the issue of capital punishment.

Bishop McClory: I agree. Let me add a few further distinctions based on my own background as a civil and canon lawyer. We must remind ourselves of the purpose of penal law. Why are punishments imposed?

According to the law of the Church, we penalize for three reasons: to reform the offender, to remove scandal and to restore justice. So, someone is punished because we want the offender to realize that what he or she has done is so horrible that they should change their ways; so that they would say, "I am being punished for this because it's a really bad thing. I need to come to terms with it because I violated a norm to such a degree that I need to be reformed in this regard."

It makes me think of my pastoral experience of visiting prison inmates, especially when celebrating Mass there on Christmas morning. I'm reminded that inmates have an OCIA program. Some serve as sacristans. I even use incense. Others lead the praise and worship music. There's a lector. Some even ask me, "Bishop, which Eucharistic prayer are you going to use?"

The point is that there are men removed from society who are seeking to bring other men into the Church. An inmate will say to me, "I'm going to be baptized in April" while pointing to another inmate who's acting as his sponsor. All of this proves that, while removed from society, people really do reform their lives. They really can convert. They really can live out the Christian life.

Now, second: What about removing scandal? The classic understanding of scandal is that if society sees a wrong action, someone is more likely to do it themselves if no sanction is imposed. "If this person can get away with it, why can't I?" So, penalties convey the message that you shouldn't commit similar crimes because they are really bad actions.

Finally, penal actions are directed toward the service of justice. This is where some might think that the only way to restore justice is to kill; to take the life of another person. But that's simply not the mind of the Church nor of the Gospel. To be separated from society for the rest of one's life is indeed a just response to a horrific act, because in doing so we protect the innocent by removing that person from society.

So, the real question is, what purpose does the death penalty really serve? I think that for some, in their heart of hearts, they just think the pain inflicted by the crime is so intense that we can never forgive it. The only way to balance the scales of justice is to take another life.
That's precisely where mercy intervenes. That's where the Gospel says there's another way, there's a better way, there's a healthier way, there's a happier way—there's a pathway to compassion. This is what makes it possible for those victimized by a violent crime to say, "but I forgive, I forgive, I forgive."

Gallagher: Like the father of the young victims of Mr. Weisheit's crime?

Bishop McClory: Yes, I think so. The extraordinary power of that forgiveness can break the cycle of death. I think it's so important for us to speak clearly and succinctly about this. When I go to celebrate Mass in the prison on Christmas morning, the fact that an inmate was just executed a month earlier crystallizes the reality of the issue in a completely new way for me.

Gallagher: Your Excellency, if I can interject here for a moment. You made me think of my own experience with Rachel's Vineyard, how it opened my eyes to the issue of abortion in a whole new way. My mother was deeply involved in the pro-life movement at the national level in the post-Roe v. Wade years, so among my earliest memories are her hauling us from studio to studio to give interviews and driving each January to Washington for the March for Life.
But working in a healing ministry for post-abortive women -- and, indeed, men -- made me realize that the dignity of life that the Gospel compels us to protect is found at several different levels. The tragedy of abortion invariably affects the women who have had one, as well as their family members and friends.

It makes me think, for example, of the Moreau College Initiative right up the road from you at Holy Cross College in Notre Dame, where professors teach courses in the prison to enable the inmates to earn fully accredited college degrees while in detention. Like your experience celebrating Mass at the Indiana State Prison, it opens one's eyes to the possibilities of human achievement regardless of one's past sins if we acknowledge his or her dignity face-to-face.

Bishop McClory: Indeed. Perhaps this makes it possible to see how such experiences might contribute to the development of Catholic doctrine.

Gallagher: Yes, I suppose so. I think of how boldly Pope John Paul II preached the inviolable dignity of the human person based on insights he gained as a philosopher trained in phenomenology. Researching the background for the revision he made to the catechism in 1997 regarding the death penalty, I came to realize that he was thoroughly convinced that development was possible for the Church's teaching on capital punishment in a way surprisingly consistent with aspects of the Church's previous teaching.

That said, I acknowledge that the 2018 change made by Pope Francis can seem jarring to some people. At the very least -- as I mentioned previously with regard to war -- we can't say that the Church previously taught that capital punishment was a "good" in itself. What was "good" was the common good -- i.e., the protection of the innocent -- thus making it possible to have recourse to the death penalty to ensure such protection. In other words, capital punishment was "permissible," though certainly not the ideal. Why? Because, as the current catechism teaches, "quippe quae repugnet inviolabili personae humanae dignitati" -- "insofar as it 'fights against' or 'is opposed to' or is even 'abrasive to' or 'against the grain' of the inviolable dignity of the human person." Personally, I think that's a better translation, and as someone directly involved with the Latin, I can say with confidence that that is what we meant.

Bishop McClory: I think you raise some good points regarding inadmissibility and inviolability. I think they underscore my previous point of whether there's a circumstance today in which the death penalty would be admissible. I would put the burden on someone to tell me a case anywhere in the world where the death penalty should be admitted. I just think we don't have such circumstances.

Perhaps we could make an analogy. We could imagine we were in a community under attack by a wolf or wild beast, and the only means of preserving that community was to terminate the life of that threat. But that just doesn't seem suitable -- let alone ideal -- if the threat is a fellow human being. It's very difficult to say that we must put this aggressor to death because he or she is a threat upon the community. We're simply not talking about a wild animal; we're talking about the inviolable dignity of a human person. We just don't meet the threshold to say we can take the life of that individual as a means to save and protect the lives of others. I just find no credible circumstance in today's world where that would be admissible.

Gallagher: I agree. I honestly think that Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo XIV are simply reasserting that very insight of Pope John Paul II. Do you agree?

Bishop McClory: I do.

Gallagher: I recall the criticism some directed at Pope Leo when he said that "someone who says 'I'm against abortion' but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life." I think that's entirely consistent with the current teaching of the Church, and it was undoubtedly the explicit teaching of his predecessors John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

Yet, I have to admit, Your Excellency, that his words could be disorienting to some. Can you help me with that?

Bishop McClory: I would begin by saying that it is fundamentally the case that there is no inherent contradiction in saying that to be pro-life is to be opposed to abortion, and to be pro-life is to be opposed to the death penalty. In fact, it's entirely consistent to be opposed to both. Yet the fact of the matter is there are distinctions between the two. I, like you, was deeply involved in the pro-life movement. I was an officer for Students for Life. I prayed outside abortion clinics. So, I am definitely aware that there are crucial distinctions between the two issues. The sheer number of respective deaths, the innocence of life in the womb, the need to protect the most vulnerable -- all these factors contribute to the appropriate distinctions.
But to say that both abortion and the death penalty are issues of life and death, and that one is held to oppose both abortion and the death penalty, is not to say that they are co-equal, because they're just not. The unjust taking of an innocent human life is intrinsically evil. Abortion is evil. The intensity and importance and reality of protecting life in the womb is crucial precisely because of its vulnerability. We don't diminish that at all by saying that the death penalty is immoral and should be rejected.

If a public figure is challenged on his or her support for abortion and responds, "Well, I am with the Church in its opposition to the death penalty" and thinks that will balance things out -- that's just specious and incoherent. The truth is the truth. Human life is human life. To be fully prolife is to defend human life from "womb to tomb," including the lives of those on death row.

Gallagher: Bishop McClory, there's so much more we can say, but at least I think we've begun to unpack the importance not only of clarifying the Church's current teaching on capital punishment, but the urgent need to "work with determination for its abolition worldwide," as the Catechism now teaches. You and your flock are definitely in our prayers these days as you pray outside the State Prison and continue to confront this issue in the state of Indiana and beyond.

Bishop McClory: I've appreciated our conversation, Dan, and I especially appreciate the prayers and support. I just want to say how urgent it is for all of us to stick to the core message that Jesus Christ shed his blood on the Cross to redeem the world and to take all our sins upon him -- even the most horrible we can imagine. He is our salvation. He is the source of mercy. And we who want to be agents of mercy should be the ones on the forefront of applying that mercy to others, even when it's difficult, even when it's painful.

Gallagher: Amen. Thank you, Bishop.

Daniel B. Gallagher teaches philosophy and literature at Ralston College in Savannah, Georgia, and is a former papal Latinist. He worked for a decade (2006–2016) in the Vatican's Office of Latin Letters within the Secretariat of State, serving as a Latin and English secretary/speechwriter for both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

Caption: Bishop Robert J. McClory of Gary, Ind., with binder, leads a prayer vigil outside Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Nov. 4, 2026, on the eve of the scheduled execution of convicted child killer Jeffrey Weisheit. Weisheit, 50, died by a lethal injection of pentobarbital, with the process starting shortly after midnight Nov. 5, according to news reports. (OSV News screenshot/Diocese of Gary)