Posted on 04/26/2012 8:35:52 AM PDT by Abathar
FORT WAYNE, Ind. -- A Fort Wayne teacher who claims she was fired from a Roman Catholic school for using in vitro fertilization to try to get pregnant is suing in a case that could set up a legal showdown over reproductive and religious rights.
Emily Herx's lawsuit accuses the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne of discrimination for her firing last June.
Herx, 31, of Hoagland, Ind., said that the church pastor told her she was a "grave, immoral sinner" and that a scandal would erupt if anyone learned she had undergone in vitro fertilization, or IVF.
The Roman Catholic Church shuns IVF, which involves mixing egg and sperm in a laboratory dish and transferring a resulting embryo into the womb. Herx said she was fired despite exemplary performance reviews in her eight years as a language arts teacher.
Legal experts said Herx's case illustrates a murky area in the debate over separation of church and state that even the U.S. Supreme Court has failed to clearly address.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
“shuns” is a pretty lame word for the actual dogma.
How about FORBIDS.
Religious groups should have their own rules -- barring force or fraud -- they should call their own shots.
She knew the rules when she went to work for the school. Whether the school is right or wrong is not the point here. It’s a private school and they can do what they want.
“TEACHER FIRED FOR IVF”
Works for me. And good riddance, teach’.
Times are changing. The great Church is FINALLY barking back and living the faith for a change. Damn near too late, but the Lion is roaring now on a few fronts.
Never, ever, let fraud be mentioned when the subject of faith comes up, especially in the eyes of a court.
Like Muslim groups?
I thought I heard it reported somewhere that the actual reason she was fired, was for using excessive sick days. ??
Yes. The last thing you want is for the government determining the boundaries of legitimate faith so that means we have to cast a pretty wide net.
asking for some clarification here (I’m not a catholic).
I understand the proscription on birth control, as that prevents a birth that God may have wanted to occur. It inhibits the creation of life.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive.
Does the catholic church frown on this? If so, what is the rationale? I simply don’t understand (no insults intended, and if so, I appologize in advance) I’m simply curious as to the ‘why’.
Sounds like you believe in private property rights. According to the left, that’s “hatred”. Except of course when it comes to their private property.
Out of curiosity, is this woman married? I scanned for the word married and husband and didn’t get a hit. I can see a school also having a problem with choosing to have an out-of-wedlock child, regardless of how it was conceived.
I understand the proscription on birth control, as that prevents a birth that God may have wanted to occur. It inhibits the creation of life.
But, IVF does exactly the opposite, it enables life where the mother may, through no fault of her own, be unable to conceive.
Does the catholic church frown on this? If so, what is the rationale? I simply dont understand (no insults intended, and if so, I appologize in advance) Im simply curious as to the why.
The rationale for the second is the same as the first... the Will of God. Life is His domain. We cooperate with His Will in generating offspring. It's the height of hubris to seek to create a life that God Himself has denied you.
Condition of employment is “You must follow our Rules”.
Catholic schools are not obliged to teach secular concepts, which oppose Church teachings.
Either by curricula or example!
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168
Exactly. This is what we need to get away from. Leave us alone and adhere to the Constitution of this country.
Thank you.
How does the legitimacy of a faith get determined?
IVF involves masturbation which the Church teaches is immoral. IVF takes place outside of the conjugal act which the Church teaches is immoral. IVF usually involves the fertilization of more than one egg, thus creating more than one embryo. What happens to those other embryos? Are they left in a state of suspended animation, frozen, or are they destroyed, aborted? Both options are immoral.
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.