OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Military Archbishop Urges Catholics to Avoid Hasan Execution Firing Squad

9 sources · updated 2026-10-13
Left 33% Center 0% Right 67%
3 left · 0 center · 6 right

What happened

Nidal Malik Hasan, a former U.S. Army psychiatrist who uses a wheelchair after being shot by responding officers, was convicted of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and is scheduled to be executed by firing squad on December 3 at that base—the first U.S. military firing squad execution since 1945 and the first military execution by any method since 1961. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the execution would be public and livestreamed at the same time of day as the attack, saying people “need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” On Monday, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who oversees Catholic pastoral care for the U.S. military, released a statement opposing the livestream and instructing any Catholic soldiers assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused as contrary to Church teaching. Pope Leo XIV wrote on Saturday, without naming Hasan, that the death penalty is “inadmissible”; Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin and U.S. bishops’ conference president Archbishop Paul Coakley also publicly opposed broadcasting the execution. President Donald Trump said Saturday he had not yet decided whether to allow the livestream, and Vice President JD Vance said he would not watch it if it occurred.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 9 articles

9 of 9 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 9 of 9
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Archbishop Timothy Broglio, Pete Hegseth, Pope Leo XIV, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Bishop Joseph Coffey
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 3 of 9
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: official statement, social media post, official document, statement
Credits another outlet 0 of 9
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 9
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 12, 04:06 UTC by Fox News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Fox News (social media post).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage presents the livestream as a White House decision already made, opposed mainly by a military archbishop. Right-leaning coverage is simply fuller: it reports the president has not approved the broadcast and that Republicans have already objected. A Hill report casts Broglio as rejecting a Trump administration decision, while Fox News reports Trump has not yet decided and that Republican lawmakers have spoken against a public execution. The emphasis splits on what the protest is even about. Left-leaning pieces lead with Broglio's warning that a stream would imitate the terrorists. Right-leaning Fox News leads with Pope Leo restating the church's ban on capital punishment, in a post that did not name Hasan. Will the Army honor Catholic recusals if that leaves it unable to form a firing squad?
Bottom line

Someone who read only the Hill would think Trump had already ordered cameras at Hasan's execution. Fox News reports he has not decided, and that a Republican senator compared public executions to Iran.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Broglio compared the firing-squad recusal duty to a procured abortion official statementin Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Cardinal Pietro Parolin called it unacceptable to turn death into a spectacle official statementin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed Broglio’s intervention as a moral rebuke of a public killing, centering his warning that a broadcast would “imitate the terrorists” and his question whether “exposing the public to his execution serve any purpose.” They highlighted his order that Catholic soldiers recuse themselves because the duty is “contrary to the teachings of the church,” and his concern that showing “the execution of a man in a wheelchair to the whole world” would throw the U.S. military “in the same boat with terrorists.” The Guardian and ABC News presented him as joining other Catholic leaders against both capital punishment and the livestream, and noted that he had presided over the funeral of Michael Grant Cahill, the attack’s only civilian victim.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets reported the same Catholic objections while giving more space to Hasan’s crime as a terrorist attack on soldiers he was assigned to treat and to Hegseth’s deterrent justification. The Daily Wire quoted auxiliary Bishop Joseph Coffey calling the plan “a terrible idea” and “barbaric,” and Broglio asking whether “the potential moral injury, which the members of the firing squad might experience, [has] been considered” and whether livestream exposure of “the young and impressionable” could be repaired. Fox News carried Vance describing the shooting as, in his view, “the worst terrorist attack on American soil outside of 9/11,” while saying he would not watch a stream, and Sen. Thom Tillis’s remark that “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do.” Several conservative pieces traced Church teaching from a traditional limited allowance of capital punishment through Pope Francis’s 2018 Catechism revision declaring it “inadmissible,” which Pope Leo XIV restated.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that a globally streamed killing would “imitate the terrorists” and convert justice into spectacle—given force by Broglio’s wheelchair image, Coakley’s “barbaric promotion of a culture of death,” and Parolin’s “unacceptable to turn death into a spectacle.” The right’s strongest counterweight, present even in outlets covering Catholic opposition, is that the attack’s exceptional brutality—Vance’s comparison to 9/11 and Hegseth’s claim that the public needs to see consequences—makes invisibility itself a moral failure, even as many of those same voices (Tillis, Coffey, Vance refusing to watch) split off the camera from the sentence. The central unresolved tension is whether a lawful military execution of a convicted mass murderer can be shown as deterrence without becoming the dignity-destroying spectacle the Church now treats as inherent in capital punishment itself—and whether objecting to the livestream can be separated from objecting to the death penalty.

9 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.