Posted on 12/27/2014 11:01:40 AM PST by marshmallow
A federal jury ruled the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend broke the law when it fired a teacher for violating the morals clause of her contract.
INDIANAPOLIS — A federal grand jury decided the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend will have to pay out nearly $2 million to a teacher it fired for violating the morals clause of her contract, by using artificial means to get pregnant.
The jury found the diocese guilty of violating the Civil Rights Act as a result of its decision to uphold its Catholic identity by enforcing the morals clause, which applies to all teachers working in diocesan schools.
The jury of five women and seven men deliberated five and a half hours Dec. 19 before announcing that the Indiana diocese unlawfully discriminated against Emily Herx on the basis of her sex, when they declined to renew her contract in June 2011.
Herx, a married Catholic woman, had been a junior high school language arts teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne since 2003. She told diocesan officials that she was conceiving a child through in vitro fertilization (IVF), and was let go after rejecting the diocese’s attempts to reconcile her with Church teaching.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
They should file an appeal and not pay on the Law suit.
they should appeal
no way they should pay anything
So much for the rule of law.
Why on earth did she even tell them?
Was it some kind of test?
They should simply refuse, and force the governments hand against the church. Lets see if the feds have the cajones...it’s time to set a precedent for non-compliance with government over reach.
“Why on earth did she even tell them?”
Arrogance perhaps.
$2 million reasons.
Both excellent answers!
To get the health plan to pay
Agreed.
She was apparently asking for time off, related to the treatments.
What’s interesting is that she told them twice (for two rounds of treatments). The first time, her supervisors were supportive, the second time she was fired.
WWFD?
(What Would Francis Do?)
That IS interesting.
Yes they should. IMHO it would only be sex discrimination if they would not fire a male teacher whose wife had used IVF. Since there is no way of knowing if that ever came up the decision seems to be based on a negative (what was not done)since the jury cannot show only a woman would be penalized for using IVF.
Oh and note to copy editor, the woman became an ex communicated Catholic when she used IVF unless she repented and received absolution.
Would IVF result in automatic excommunication? I know that is the ecclesiastical penalty for abortion, AND I realize that embryos are “often” killed from the IVF procedure, but wouldn’t it depend on whether embryos were killed and she knew it?
I don’t know of any IVF procedure that does not involve the destruction of embryos. If the procedure can be accomplished without the destruction of embryos it is still not morally licit. Since it is an offense against marriage I think the canonical (is that the right term) penalty would be same as for other such offenses like the use of artificial contraceptives. I do not know what that would be.
Thank you for this explanat5ion.
I know that artificial conception, like artificial contraception, is a grave offense against the dignity of marriage (because it separates the sacred signs of lovemaking and life-making) and the dignity of the conceived child (because it treats him as a product/commodity, not a gift of the love embrace.)
However, I don't think artificial conception or contraception per se incur automatic excommunication. It's bad enough that they're mortal sins!
I believe you are right. In this instance the teacher knew and agreed to abide by Church teaching. She signed a contract. If she had qualms with the terms of the contract she should have declined to accept a position at the school.
Exactly.
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.