The Nebraska Catholic Conference (NCC) represents the collective voice of the three Catholic bishops in Nebraska. The Conference does not take a position on a piece of legislation unless the three bishops agree on that position.
Legislation that involves particularly serious, sensitive, or complicated matters is typically discussed at length by the bishops and the members of the Conference Board along with the Conference staff. At the root of such discussions is Catholic teaching which provides essential guidance for evaluating legislation and determining what, if any, position the Conference should take on the legislation.
This year, two of the bills that received significant discussion and analysis by NCC are LB 268 (repeal the death penalty and replace with life in prison without parole) and LB 586 (creates new unlawful employment practices on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity).
The Conference’s support of LB 268 is based upon Church teaching as presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2267): “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’”
The bishops believe that the primary condition (i.e. absolute necessity) needed to legitimize use of the death penalty does not exist at this time in Nebraska. For this reason, the bishops, guided by prudence and the teaching of the Church, made the decision to support legislative efforts to repeal the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without parole.
The Conference’s opposition to LB 586 is also based upon Church teaching. The Catechism confirms that men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (2358). However, the vague definition of “sexual orientation” in LB 586 would likely require employers to affirm and support sexual behavior that the Catechism, referencing Sacred Scripture, characterizes as “intrinsically disordered” (2357).
The same broad definition could also be invoked to mandate employment protection of the sexual behavior of unmarried heterosexual couples, which the Catechism describes as “gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality…” (2353). By its nature, LB 586 would require employers to be cognizant of their employee’s sexual behavior and to take it into account in their employment practices.
Most proponents of LB 586 also are overlooking the serious implications of conferring vaguely-defined protections based on “gender identity.” This ideological concept was not part of the public policy debate in 1992 and therefore is not referenced in the Catechism. But both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have raised strong objections to its growing influence.
In summary, Pope Francis describes gender theory as “an error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion.” Pope Benedict describes “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality that constitutes “the manipulation of nature.” He has warned that it disputes “man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human,” thereby denying “an essential aspect of what being human is all about” and the family as a reality established by creation.
I have received passionate emails on both bills from Catholics who disagree with NCC’s position. Some of the emails were snarky at best and nasty at worst. Since I generally don’t respond to correspondence that lacks civility, I want to make clear in this space that the policy positions of NCC reflect the teaching of our Church and our bishops.
