Posted on 05/12/2006 6:56:49 AM PDT by NYer
May 11, 2006 — - After five years trying to conceive, Kelly and Eric Romenesko decided to try in vitro fertilization.
Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life.
"They're miracles. They're precious," Kelly Romenesko said.
The couple were not prepared for what came next. When Kelly, a teacher at two Catholic schools in Wisconsin, told her bosses she had gotten pregnant through in vitro, they handed her a pink slip.
"I was in tears," she said. "I remember asking, 'Is this the only reason why I'm being fired?' They stated, 'Yes.'"
The schools say Romenesko agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired. One of those teachings was that the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception.
"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."
People like Joseph Capizzi of the Culture of Life Foundation said that in vitro fertilization ran counter to Catholic teachings, which stress that a child should be conceived through sex between a husband and wife.
"It's not so much that it's artificial that's the problem, instead it's removing the sexual act and procreative act from the context of marriage," he said.
The church also takes issue with in vitro because embryos are sometimes destroyed, but Romenesko said there were other teachers who had in vitro in the school. She said she did not go public with her announcement but "stated it to a principal behind closed doors that we were going through this process."
Romenesko appealed to the school board, but it would not reinstate her. Now a state agency is looking into the case. Meanwhile, the Romeneskos have stopped practicing Catholicism.
"I think the issue here is the fact that Kelly was released from her job for being pregnant, not the in vitro fertilization itself," Eric said. "Our daughters have been baptized Lutheran at this point in time. Kelly and I haven't converted yet."
"It wouldn't change my ability to teach in any way," she said. "It's a shame. This shouldn't have happened."
Im a Catholic, and I understand Church Doctrine. But this case stinks. In a day and age where people are fighting for the right to abort babies, a couple who is unable to conceive, shouldnt be punished for their inability to do so. The Church should quietly re-instate her. All to often, the Church will take a step forward and then two back..
She wasn't punished for her 'inability' to conceive. She was let go for not following church doctrine.
The news report conveniently ignores that aspect of catholic doctrine in its coverage. The couple are the 'victims'; not the babies sacrificed in the petrie dish.
I know a couple who is heartbroken because they cant conceive. Sometimes concessions should be made. The Church has enough black eyes without going looking for more. Im not trying to obstinate, nor argumentaive. I just think this could have been handled better,as two Catholics have bolted..
Newer? What has changed? The woman's ovaries still need to be stimulated with hormones to overproduce eggs. The eggs are still siphoned out during a surgical procedure. The husband has to 'produce' on the spot so 'conception' can take place in a petrie dish. How natural is that!
The teacher stated, "I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."
Although this brings up her qualifications to teach in a Catholic school, as, at least at the Elementary age, all teachers are required to teach religion, I would tend to agree with you, if the statement I quoted was a truthful one.
Not that I am compromising on the issue of IVF. Rather, a person must be aware of the sinfulness of an act in order to be held accountable for that act. If she is telling the truth, then it would be obvious that she was not properly catechized.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
I believe that the Catechism would tend to disagree with you a bit.
My husband and I were also in that same situation. It indeed is a heartache that never goes away. We spent an awful lot of money going to specialists on two continents, before finally letting go of the decision to the Creator. We'd had enough of undignified, even painful treatments and procedures that stripped the joy from our personal life and made having a baby not just a goal but an obsession. Our two adopted children are ours in every way, not the least of which because we know they were direct answers to prayer.
We never even considered IVF. We're not Catholic, but agree on that point--"culling" unborn children to ensure that only the strongest survive is, in my mind, ghoulish and just wrong. Having said that, I cannot impute motives to the couple in question. Perhaps they closed their ears to that point. Perhaps their desire to have biological children (a God-given, incredibly strong drive) overcame their good reason. Why would the woman have mentioned her method of conception at work if she'd had any inkling it would cost her so dearly?
In any case, what does the Catholic Church propose in a situation like this? Are people drummed out? Do they refuse baptism to the children? Is there a process to reinstate or legitimize the family somehow? Just curious.
The problem with human in-vitro fertilization is that it is a subhuman way to conceive a creature who has the dignity of being, in fact, sacred: an image of God.
It comes down to the question of: is sex sacred, ir isn't it? The Church teaches that for humans (all humans, not just Catholics), sex IS sacred. For us, is it a constitutive element of a sacrament, the Sacrament of Matrimony -- which means that marital lovemaking is actually a channel which God uses to make you holy!
Since human beings are God's image-bearers, marital sexual love is the only appropriate way to bring them into being. In other words (it sounds strange to our totally crass and secularized ears, but here it is): only sexual intercourse is sufficiently dignified to bring a human person into existence with his/her dignity intact.
"Begotten, not made." That means a lot. Something that is "made" is a product, and products are inherently inferior to the producer. A product is a commodity. A commodity is a thing -- something which can be owned or discarded, bought, sold, traded, used. (Which is exactly what can be done wih an IVF embryo.) But a creature which is begotten has exactly the same nature and dignity as the one who begot him.
This kind of thinking may seem kind of high-altitude and rarefied at first, but it's clearer if you look at artificial procreation as a whole, and where it is headed. It is clearly headed toward taking humans out of the "person" category and into the "product" category. Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" or C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man."
Like you, been there and done that. Congratulations on your decision, from one adoptive parent to another.
In any case, what does the Catholic Church propose in a situation like this? Are people drummed out? Do they refuse baptism to the children? Is there a process to reinstate or legitimize the family somehow? Just curious.
The Catholic Church provides the Sacrament of Reconciliation for those who have sinned - that's all of us :-). The children are ALWAYS welcome into the Church through Baptism.
In this particular instance, the parents have unnecessarily chosen to separate themselves from the Church, through arrogance and self-righteousness. They can always come home.
I love your posts! They are filled with precise information, presented in a clear thinking approach. Thank you!
It's not an inconsistency; not if you look at in terms of means and ends.
First of all, it's not inherently wrong to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Under some circumstances, it's even a moral obligation. So if the "end" is morally OK --- which we agree could be the case --- then we have to consider the "means." (Obvious examples: "we're getting an abortion" would be an immoral means. So would "we're confining our sexual expression to video pornography & masturbation.")
Contraceptive action is wrong because it violates the Creator's design for the body. It actively opposes something which is a good healthy part of the design (fertility) as if it were a defect or a disease.
NFP isn't wrong because there's no contraceptive action. The couple is not thwarting, but cooperating with the periodic fertile/infertile female cycle.
Please understand that there's a huge moral difference between "acting in harmony" with your sexual design, and "sabotaging" it.
NFP means abstaining to avoid pregnancy. Avoiding pregnancy can be a morally un-objectionable end. Abstaining --- as long as it is mutually agreed upon, and for a sufficiently grave reason --- is a morally un-objectionable means.
most of the people I know who use NFP are actually using it to GET pregnant.
My heart goes out to this couple, despite they fact that they cooperated with something that was gravely morally defective, because it's quite possible that they never even guessed there was anything wrong with this.
In any case, they shouldn't have walked out. (They weren't kicked out; they bolted.) If they want to come back, they need to find a priest they can talk to, to help them honestly sort out their degree of moral responsibility. For their own peace of mind. And then they need to repent (like we all do) and seek absolution through Confession.
I am very grateful for the Sacrament of Confession. Getting things sorted out with God really does lift a great burden from your shoulders.
There must be some tort lawyers salivating to be hired for this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.