WASHINGTON — Archbishop Timothy Broglio is directing Catholic troops assigned to Nidal Hasan’s execution to request a firing squad exemption on religious grounds.

Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio issued the directive in an Oct. 12 statement.

“I oblige any Catholics assigned to the firing squad to request to be excused from this action contrary to the teaching of the Church,” he wrote.

The Army has scheduled Hasan’s execution for Dec. 3 at 1 p.m. Central at Fort Hood, Texas. President Donald Trump approved the death sentence Oct. 2, and acting Army Secretary Adam Telle subsequently directed that it be carried out by firing squad.

However, CBS News reported Tuesday that officials were leaning against a livestream, citing unnamed sources; Trump had not made a final decision.

Catholic troops face a question of conscience

Broglio’s objection encompasses both capital punishment and the proposed broadcast. He questioned the consequences for participating troops, young viewers and the military’s international reputation.

He also renewed his sympathy for the victims’ families. Broglio recalled presiding at the funeral of Michael Grant Cahill, the civilian killed in the Fort Hood attack.

The instruction places Catholic service members’ religious obligations alongside their military responsibilities. Any exemption would still need to be addressed through the military’s accommodation process.

The underlying religious position is explicit. Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the death penalty as inadmissible and commits the church to working toward its abolition worldwide.

The teaching rests on the position that people retain their dignity even after committing grave crimes. It also points to detention systems that can protect the public while preserving the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, removing the cameras would leave the church’s objection to the execution itself intact. Broglio’s instruction specifically addresses participation in the firing squad.

How a firing squad exemption request would work

The Pentagon already has a framework for considering conflicts between military requirements and religious practice.

Defense Department Instruction 1300.17, titled “Religious Liberty in the Military Services,” addresses requests for religious accommodations. These include requests for exemptions from otherwise applicable military policies.

The instruction calls for individual consideration of the facts and circumstances. It identifies military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and health and safety among the interests officials must evaluate.

It also requires consideration of alternatives. Where a compelling government interest is involved, the means least restrictive of religious practice is central to the analysis.

An accommodation can be granted in whole or in part, with conditions or limitations. Accordingly, a religious objection initiates a process whose outcome depends on the request and the applicable requirements.

Federal law supplies another layer of protection. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act generally prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious exercise.

To justify such a burden, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that its approach is the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. The statute also permits a person to raise a violation in court.

Those protections could become relevant to a disputed execution assignment. However, they do not establish in advance how a court would resolve a particular service member’s case. That would depend on the individual circumstances and the government’s justification.

Broglio’s statement therefore has practical significance beyond expressing opposition to a policy. It identifies a conflict Catholic troops could raise through existing religious-accommodation procedures.

Hegseth framed public viewing as a warning

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the proposed public execution as a way to communicate the consequences of Hasan’s crimes.

During an interview with Jack Posobiec published Oct. 8, Hegseth said soldiers would carry out the firing squad at Fort Hood.

“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public,” he said.

Hegseth connected the choice of location and timing to the attack itself. He argued that the punishment would send a forceful message about attacks committed against Americans by someone serving in uniform.

The Pentagon subsequently confirmed the livestream plan to Task & Purpose. That confirmation established that the proposal involved a public broadcast, beyond allowing selected witnesses to attend.

The outlet also reported that the Army had previously considered a different execution location before officials announced Fort Hood.

Related coverage — Opinion: Hegseth’s Execution Livestream Is a Disgrace

Catholic leaders broaden their opposition

Broglio’s intervention follows a condemnation from Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In an Oct. 9 statement, Coakley called the livestream decision “a barbaric promotion of a culture of death.”

He explicitly condemned Hasan’s crimes while urging the government to reconsider the broadcast. Coakley argued that publicly executing someone who committed grave harm would further damage the nation’s moral life.

His statement emphasized the government’s responsibility for its own choices when imposing punishment. It also appealed to Catholics’ religious commitment to human life under difficult circumstances.

Pope Leo XIV has likewise reiterated the church’s opposition to capital punishment. According to The Associated Press, his Oct. 10 statement marked the World Day Against the Death Penalty without specifically naming Hasan.

The pope’s remarks followed criticism from Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who directly objected to the planned public execution.

These statements share a position grounded in Catholic teaching. They do not establish that all Catholics, military personnel or victims’ relatives hold the same views about the sentence.

Texas bishops warn of further trauma at Fort Hood

The location of the proposed execution also concerns Catholic leaders in Texas.

In an Oct. 12 statement from the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, Bishop Daniel E. Garcia of Austin warned that carrying out and broadcasting the execution at Fort Hood could compound existing trauma.

His diocese includes the installation.

Garcia’s concerns extended to victims’ relatives, survivors, military personnel and children who could encounter the broadcast. He asked Catholics to pray for service members called upon to participate and others on the base who might be exposed to the execution.

The bishops’ statement named those killed in the attack and remembered the wounded. It situated their opposition within the continuing harm experienced by the Fort Hood community.

However, the bishops’ assessment represents their own position. It should not be treated as a statement on behalf of every survivor or grieving family.

What moral injury could mean for participating troops

Broglio also raised the possibility of moral injury among firing-squad members.

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ National Center for PTSD describes moral injury as lasting distress that can follow experiences violating deeply held beliefs or values.

Such experiences can involve participating in an act, witnessing it or failing to prevent it. The resulting distress may include guilt, shame, anger, betrayal or a spiritual crisis.

Moral injury is not itself a psychiatric diagnosis. However, it can occur alongside post-traumatic stress disorder or depression and affect relationships and daily functioning.

The VA also notes that many people experience distress after morally troubling events and improve over time. Exposure does not mean every person will develop a lasting injury.

That distinction is relevant here. The VA guidance explains the type of harm Broglio raised; it does not predict the psychological outcome for any particular soldier assigned to an execution.

It also shows why the welfare of participating personnel presents a separate question from whether officials have legal authority to carry out a sentence.

The execution date does not end the legal process

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, killed 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood attack. His court-martial conviction and death sentence followed in 2013.

The Army’s announcement says the Supreme Court declined to review his court-martial conviction on March 31, 2025. Trump’s subsequent approval allowed the military to begin the process of carrying out the sentence.

However, presidential approval does not necessarily end access to the courts.

A May analysis published in Army Lawyer explains that a military prisoner with an approved death sentence may pursue habeas corpus relief in civilian federal court.

That process allows a prisoner to challenge the legality of confinement on constitutional grounds. A prisoner may also request a stay of execution while the court considers the case.

If a judge grants a stay, the military cannot proceed while it remains in effect. Whether Hasan pursues further litigation, and how a court responds, could therefore affect the announced schedule.

The same analysis notes that the military’s last execution occurred in 1961, when Army Pvt. John Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Hasan’s execution would resume a punishment the military has not carried out in 65 years.

The announced date remains Dec. 3. As preparations continue, the Army must address any accommodation requests under the applicable rules, while any further court proceedings could determine whether the execution proceeds on schedule.