Posted on 04/26/2012 12:16:11 PM PDT by redreno
Any contract requires that the parties act in good faith. The school says she broke the contract by engaging in behavior that impairs their relationship. Many contracts are breeched accidentally, but this one was obviously not. Accidental breech is often overlooked, because it does not fundamentally change the relationship. The Orthodox Church, In understand, allows divorce on account of adultery, because it transforms the marriage relationship. What she has done is analogous of adultery, to what adultery was in the old days.
Read on, I’m not interested with what is wrong with it - that really isn’t nor should be the focus of this case and a hopefully, their lawyer won’t either. It’s about what she agreed to obey. IMO.
It has become material, because the conventional morality has become so different from Catholic morality. Fifty years ago, this was not the same, and this was when the law was formulated. IVF is really nothing sophisticated; it is simply applying the techniques of animal husbandry on human beings.
This is a “Kaching” lawsuit.
Catholics see love, the sexual act, marriage and children as all part of God’s plan. She says “I WANT A KID”. Fine. Adopt one.
those of us who adopt as single parents are giving a home to a child who needs one.
To your thinking, think how to win in court. That’s where the focus should be, IMO. She was wrong and that’s where the focus should be and way way way less costly.
They don’t have to justify why it’s a church teaching! It is. Simply as that.
She signed to obey their rules, she told them what she was doing, then (supposedly) found out it was against their teaching and she was fired. What would she expect they do? Renege on the agreement they both signed? Every company has rules and are obligated to do what needs to be done when one goes against them lest their company run amok.
Don’t think ‘religious’ here nor trying the ‘we have higher standards routine - that’s a sure looser, IMO. Think employee/employer. Case closed. With time and money left to fight fights than a disgruntled employee because she feels wronged. WOW!! A snoozer of a case for any half way decent lawyer. Going the IVF route (going to prove what? IVF is bad/against God? In court! LOL! This isn’t about them preventing her from going for the treatments and why. This isn’t what this case is about and I hope they don’t make it that. If the other side brings it up, a sharp attorney will bring it right back down to where it belongs - the lowest level. Rules were disobeyed and not about she’s violated our teachings - but rules we have in place. Again, employee/employer.
So going the IVF route - you need witnesses as surely than anything, you will have an opposing view for everyone they bring forth. In the end, it’s up to who are you going to believe ‘witness x’ or witness y’. This isn’t about IVF nor should be it’s about her going against the rules she signed to obey. If she works there, it’s up to her to know the rules, not to make sure she knows them. She was hired as a professional and a professional would want to know what the do/do not are in a company.
If she failed in teaching her class the required courses necessary, which has nothing to do with church teachings, they could fire her! So keep it as employee/employer. It’s just rules they have in place that she went against.
Her attorney, I’m sure is just hoping they go the IVF route - a big case, more the CC may have to shell over - otherwise she wouldn’t even have brought the case. She gets a D-.
Another future employee wouldn’t touch her, taking a former employer to court because she was supposedly didn’t know the rules of the company after 8 years working there and when she disobeyed them was fired - her solution to that problem was take them to court, for them obeying their rules while she didn’t? Lady, move over, there are 100 others who know you disobey, they stand the chance of getting fired and not to retaliate.
She may get a job in a place that has no ethics to stand by their own rules, then when she’s loaded down with work or suffers mistreatment from others that would be tolerated by management - maybe she will learn to appreciate a company with ethics. She’s already a little old to learn that lesson, greed has a way of blinding some.
Autonomy for me but not for thee!
Then there's "Sexual autonomy," -- sexual self-will ---- another proud hallmark of the Church of England. It was founded on Henry VIII's demand for multiple divorces and remarriages (in all fairness, I'll leave the beheadings out of the discussion). The CofE later distinguished itself as the first Christian church to approve contraceptive intercourse (breaking with nearly 2 millennia-long Christian moral teaching against onanism--- deliberately contracepted sex acts) at Lambeth in 1930. They went on to heap honor upon themselves in sex-and-gender moral doctrine department by OKing priestesses, then homosexuality, then homosexual (lesbian) priestesses, and now (in the USA branch anyway) the first Lesbian Bishop!
Hurrah for autonomy! Hurrah for the religion of Good Queen Bess!
By the way, I'm not saying this to the detriment of the honorable Anglicans/Episcopalians who still tenaciously hold to a recognizably human and Christian understanding of blessed natural sex. There are many such whom I revere for their good morals, good hearts and good lives. But their goodness is less and less supported (I could say, more and more sabotaged) by the ever-changing core doctrines of their church.
As for their church leadership and its official teachings: there's not a doubt in my mind that those who celebrate sex without babies will also celebrate babies without sex. So yes, they'd be OK with IVF.
The total deconstruction of sex, gender, marriage and procreation. Heady stuff, that autonomy.
Why because we follow the Bible the way it was originally wrote and not the way it was changed later?
In legal cases, religion does have the high ground, and that goes back to magna carta. The common law owes much to the civil law, but that came to English law through familiarity with canon law. Equity, of course, began as the chancellory courts, and when they were finally blended, the “ecclesiastical” element remained. Judges could not get by with as much as they do if they did not retain some royal dignity, as being originally deputies of the Crown, the king’s office itself having its own divine sanction. Positivism of course dominates the legal profession, but even they have to nod occasionally to the older forms, which are based not on contract but covenant.
“Medicine has gone too far in not only destroying life, but also creating or saving lives.”
I don’t think it’s possible for medicine to go too far in “creating or saving life.” I say, more power to them. If you consider death to be more ‘natural’, then by all means, you’re welcome to it.
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.