Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! to the Great State of Nebraska…

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! to the Great State of Nebraska… May 28, 2015

for outlawing the death penalty and then overriding the veto of the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife Catholic governor for whom the teaching of the Church is not as important as the conservative will to keep the US in the company of such enlightened regimes as Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China, and North Korea.

My prayer is that someday, every disciple of Jesus will figure out that being consistently prolife only serves to undercut those who defend abortion. All it entails is simply listening to the whole counsel of the Church and not using it to accessorize one’s Movement Conservative prior commitments.

Be Consistent!

"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?"

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The whole course of Christianity from the first ... is but one series of troubles ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • The Eh’theist

    Bravo, Bravo, Bravo to Senator Ernie Chambers who did the work to make this happen while bishops issued press releases.

    If one wanted a real life example of the perseverance of the widow with the unjust judge, he is it!

    • chezami

      You know, it’s amazingly stupid when you simultaneously complain that bishops should not be involved in politics and then complain that bishops did not wave a magic wand control the minds of the state officials into banning the death penalty. Bishops don’t make Nebraska law. But they have led the charge for years in changing hearts and minds on the death penalty. Don’t be such an ungrateful jerk.

      • The Eh’theist

        I’ve never said bishops shouldn’t be involved in politics. They have as much right to voice their opinion and to lobby for it as anyone else. But to tell the public you are praying and then claim those prayers were effective without recognizing the work of the senator who went back to the senate 37 times demanding that his colleagues do the right thing is dishonest. That seems more like ingratitude to me.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Oh, it isn’t just the bishops. I’ve watched you, within the last year on this very blog, argue that anyone who’s beliefs conflict with yours shouldn’t even use mainstream grassroots tactics to try to openly change the status quo.

          • The Eh’theist

            I was going to let this go, having thought about it and realized that my quarrel is with the bishop rather than Mark Shea (which mean I’ve earned some of that jerkiness he’s accused me of), but you’ve made me honestly curious.

            Denying someone the equal opportunity to lobby for their opinions is contrary to my personal values, so if I’ve done that, I’d like to know about it to avoid doing it in the future. Can you point me to a specific example where I’ve done that? Thanks.

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              I honestly can’t recall if the topic was the HHS mandate or redefining marriage, I only remember it because you expressed it (the idea that people opposed to laws and court decisions you like are being treasonous for working to get laws changed and court cases overturned) in that classically provincial American style that makes the militant Indian part of me steam. I only remember It was you because I was impressed at the honest nihilism of your nom development plume. I did just spend a half hour trying to help you out by finding it, but you’re a pretty prolific commenter and my Google Fu ain’t what it used to be.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                Nom de plume. I swear auto correct hates me sometimes.

                • orual’s kindred

                  Oh, you’re not the only one.

              • The Eh’theist

                Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply, I had to leave early this morning for a day trip out of town for work. I’m Canadian so I must have picked up the American style from commenting.

                I don’t remember exactly the episode you are referring to, but I will concede that I may have said something here to the effect that I don’t believe that people’s civil rights should be at the mercy of a majority vote. We’ve had to reason and fight hard to develop our concept of equality and implement it in even the limited way we have at present, that this progress needs to be protected from being undone without really good reason.

                That does put minimal limits on expression and lobbying, but the same limits protect the religious as well, both from the non-religious and from other religious groups.

        • chezami

          Oh, please. The bishops thanked everybody involved on both sides of the aisle. You’re really going to get all pissy because they didn’t do a special shout out? The point is to celebrate the law, not the personalities involved. How small you are.

        • orual’s kindred

          claim those prayers were effective

          Did any of those bishops say that the senator’s actions aren’t an important factor in making those prayers effective? When Saint Teresa of Avila said

          Christ has no body but yours,
          No hands, no feet on earth but yours

          she was being poetic, but neither was she trying to be cute. And yes, Catholics don’t always live this out as well as they should, and too many over-spiritualize the Faith. Nonetheless, the Church teaches that people play an active role in bringing about the fruits of prayer. Considering the kind of familiarity with Catholic teaching that you’ve previously shown, you probably were unaware of this. I hope, anyway, that your problem isn’t as Mark Shea says, that the bishops did not single out your preferred authority figure.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      That’s so sad, that you can’t even congratulate a man for his accomplishments without working in an anticatholic dig, against some of his best allies, no less.

      We get it, you despise us. But you’re never going to add to your numbers by bitterness and negation. It just makes you look small and petty, when we all know you were made for better and greater things. It breaks my heart to see how miserable you must be, to hijack Chambers’ doggedly earned accomplishment to get a dig in.

      Praying for you, Brother. Love you!

  • Finally, some encouraging news coming out of the U.S. of A.

  • Irksome1

    Makes perfect sense for the Party of Crazy. I mean, you can’t soak the families of the incarcerated for as much cash if the inmates are dead.

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      I doubt it’s democrats alone pushing pay to stay schemes…

  • Ron Howell

    This will happen in more places as they grow more secular. There will be an increasing rejection of capital punishment and an embrace of euthanasia, sodomy, and abortion.

    • Dave G.

      One of the strange things in this debate here on CAEI is Mark’s continued use of the ‘we’re in the company of those nasty countries who have the death penalty’ argument, when it doesn’t take much to see many countries that have abolished the DP aren’t exactly cutting edge pro-life either. Even readers opposed to the death penalty have pointed out it’s a bad argument, but Mark keeps using it. So someone must like it.

      • chezami

        Using the unborn as human shields for commitment to the death penalty and the various other inhuman and imprudent commitments of the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right is a tried and true way of ignoring obvious Church guidance. It has been used for years to keep Catholics on the GOP reservation.

        • Dave G.

          Asking for consistency in arguments is not using the unborn as human shields. Just saying.

        • The Deuce

          Can’t help but notice you didn’t actually reply to Dave G’s point about why your argument doesn’t hold up, but merely evaded it.