Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Catholic Teacher Fired for IVF Treatments
|
|
|||
|
|||
A Catholic school teacher in Indiana is suing a diocese there, claiming that she was unlawfully terminated after school officials learned she was undergoing fertility treatments to become pregnant. In a federal lawsuit filed in a Fort Wayne, Ind., teacher Emily Herx claimed that she was fired and told by a senior church official that her attempt to become pregnant through in-vitro fertilization made her a "grave, immoral sinner." Between 2003 and 2011, Herx, who taught literature and language arts at the St. Vincent de Paul School, was well regarded, receiving high marks when evaluated by administrators, according to court documents. In 2010, Herx, who is married, learned that she "suffers from a diagnosed medical condition which causes infertility" and told the school's principal she would be undergoing IVF treatments, according to court documents. At the time, the principal told Herx "You are in my prayers," and allowed her to take time off to receive treatments, according to court documents. One year later in May 2011, after requesting time off for a second round of fertility treatments, she was told to report to Msgr. John Kuzmich, the pastor of the St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. At that meeting, attended by Herx, her husband and father, Kuzmich called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and added that if news of her IVF treatments got out it would cause a "scandal" for the church, according to her civil complaint. Kuzmich allegedly said the church disproved of fertility treatments because they require the creation of additional embryos that are ultimately destroyed, a violation of Catholic teachings regarding the sanctity of embryonic life. According to her civil complaint, Herx explained that no embryos were destroyed during her treatment, but diocesan officials were not swayed. Herx made a final appeal to Bishop Kevin Rhoades, but he too refused to reinstate her, the suit alleges. Rhoades told Herx, "The process of in vitro fertilization very frequently involves the deliberate destruction or freezing of human embryos," adding, "In vitro fertilization ... is an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it," according to the civil complaint. Herx filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and won, opening the door to a civil lawsuit, according to her lawyer Kathleen DeLaney. Herx was "terminated only for trying to enlarge her family with husband," DeLaney said, calling her firing a "traumatic event" for the teacher. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the religious institutions are exempt from discrimination laws in hiring clergymen. A Catholic church for instance cannot be sued for failing to hire women priests because it conflicts with fundamental Church doctrine. DeLaney told ABC News, that she does not believe the court's decision applies to Herx. "The facts in this case are distinguishable. There is no ministerial exception. Ms. Herx didn't have religious training, did not teach religious doctrine," she said. DeLaney would not confirm whether Herx has since become pregnant. A spokesman for the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese said he was unable to comment on a pending lawsuit. --------------------------- Thoughts? |
|||
|
|
Re: Catholic Teacher Fired for IVF Treatments
I think my opinion depends on what type on contract she signed when she got the job. If she signed a contract saying she would practice and demonstrate the Catholic beliefs while working there, then I will side with the church in this since any non natural family planning is considered a sin.
However if she was under no assumption or contract to abide by the church's beliefs, then I disagree with her being fired.
It's like you read my mind.
It's like i have ESPN or something.
This. And also, why were they ok the first time and not the second time? That part bothers me. I also want to know if she was paying for it OOP or their insurance, or other insurance.
I had the same thought. If I had to make a guess I would say the principal doesn't have an issue with it but maybe a higher up started questioning why this teacher was taking all this time off. Although if that's the case I'd think the principal telling the supervisor the reason was IVF treatments would be a HIPPA violation.
Whaaaaaaaaat??
How does public school get away with this?
This is Pope John VI's opinion:
"IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life."
Obviously, lots of people are sheep and unwilling to use their own critical thinking skills.
This doesn't surprise me at all, actually.
I went to a Catholic High School and could see this happening. We had a teacher fired for having a child out of marriage. However, they have since adapted a "don't ask don't tell" kind of mindset now. My sister's FI is a teacher there now, they have my nephew (he'll be 2) and they basically gave him a timeline to make my sister an honest women.
Personally, I think they should re-evaluate their stance on IVF but for now the Pope isn't listening.
Credit to Awkward Family Pet Photos
http://tiny.cc/kpfcdw
"Kuzmich allegedly said the church disproved of fertility treatments because they require the creation of additional embryos that are ultimately destroyed, a violation of Catholic teachings regarding the sanctity of embryonic life."
This situation is exactly what you get when policies are based on ignorance.
Oh I know why they are against IVF. I meant did the school tell her if she pursued this she would lose her job. Was she made aware of the consequences? That goes back the contract that Beachy mentioned.
ETA: I think the church's stance is ridiculous for the record.
Oh, gotcha. I'm sure the story leaves out some details, but based on the "I'm praying for you comment," it sounds like the woman thought he was praying for their treatments to be successful, when I guess that may have been his passive aggressive way of saying, "I'll pray for your soul, you evil scientist."
Why do you think the Church should re-evaluate it's position on IVF? Because it's a secularly acceptable treatment?
The priest who counseled us during the months leading up to our wedding broke it down for us like this: IVF (in the Church's eyes) is like playing God. God decides if becoming a biological parent is your calling, when you seek treatment through IVF you are taking God out of the equation, saying you know better than God.
Yeah, and then they wait a year to fire her. I think that's what bothers me about this story. If you're against it fine, but be consistent.
This may be a whole other can of worms, but here is why this bothers me.
Its not that the Church is taking a stand on this, they're pretty vocal about their views on IVF. Sure, take a stand for your doctorine. It bothers me because they are so dang inconsistent on what they choose to make a bigdamn deal about. Priests molesting children? Make them go to confession and shuffle them to a different district, or possibly into retirement (still with retirement benefits). Women getting IVF? Fired. Make a bigdamn deal about their insurance covering birth control, etc, etc.
I have seriously been distancing myself from the Catholic Church because of some things like this, and my own personal beliefs. I think I'll have to wait until my grandmother dies before I talk about it in my family though, lol. It would kill her.
I changed my name
I don't think it's an ignorant stance. It all depends on how you define "life" some people define it as "conception and forward" where others define it as "sustainability outside the womb". Calling one person definition "ignorant" is ridiculous...especially when we're not talking about "policies" but the beliefs of a religious group.
It IS ignorant because 1) Not all fertility treatments actually involve the creation of embryos outside the womb, and 2) not all IVF cycles involve the destruction of embryos.
Furthermore, it's not playing God anymore than cancer treatment is. "Be happy with what God gave you!" That's a crappy excuse to not attempt to better oneself or our circumstances.
From CatholicInsight.com:
"Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""
The litmus test is very simple for Catholic couples: did you have sex to create this embryo/baby. If the answer is no it goes against the Church's beliefs.
You're right there are other ways to treat fertility outside of IVF, and some are actually given the green light by the Church (also from Catholicinsight.com):
- Observation of the naturally occurring sign(s) of fertility (Natural
Family Planning). Time intercourse on the days of presumed (potential)
fertility for at least six months before proceeding to medical
interventions.
- General medical evaluation of both spouses for infertility.
- Post-coital test to assess sperm count and viability. These tests are undertaken after normal intercourse.
- Appropriate evaluation and treatment of male factor deficiency.
Seminal fluid samples can be obtained from a non-lubricated, perforated
condom after normal intercourse.
- Assessment of uterine and tubal structural competence by imaging techniques (e.g., ultrasound, hysterosalpingogram, etc.).
- Appropriate medical treatment of ovulatory and hormonal dysfunction.
- Appropriate (usually surgical) correction of organic problems underlying male or female infertility
The Catholic Church does not view infertility as a disease...it doesn't threaten the life of the person...cancer on the other hand has been proven to kill you.ETA: There's a very simple solution to a desire to seek IVF treatment and not wanting to be considered an "evil sinner"...don't practice the Catholic religion.
But not all IVF treatments DON'T do those things either, therefore the entire IVF process goes against the beliefs of the Catholic church. This is a Catholic school, not a public school with just a very religious principal or superintendent, so they are going to abide by the beliefs of the church, which don't take into account the technical details of her specific treatment.
There is a lot more to the Catholic doctrine on IVF than the creation and destruction of embryos.
The paragraph Ojo quoted is an important part of it - the Church believes that children have a right to be conceived through sexual intercourse between their married parents. Anything other than that is a disservice to the child.
The Church also objects to IVF on the grounds that it necessarily requires other sins - for example, the male partner has to masturbate for the sperm to be collected for the procedure.
Add to these was DCNJ said about "playing God" and it's a very multi-faceted issue. The Church also believes that there is virtue in accepting the blessings you are given and learning to live without the ones you are not given. It's an act of sacrifice that brings virtue to come to terms with your biological reality.
Whether or not people agree with the Church's teaching is a point worth discussing, but articles like this make me stabby when the reduce very complicated Church doctrine to a sound bite.
FTR, I also would like to know what kind of contract the teacher signed. When I was employed by a Catholic Church I signed a contract that I would abide by the moral teachings of the Church as long as I was an employee. If she signed the same contract, I support the firing.
There is a difference between actively doing something and passively not doing something.
ETA: Also, the person affected usually has a say in whether s/he accepts chemo, respirators, etc. The child created by IVF does not get a say.
ETA 2: The Church has not taken an official position on the life-saving measures you mentioned, but when questioned about it the answer has always been that the person in questions needs to evaluate (Through prayer, discussion with a priest, and examination of conscience) the value quality of life offered by the life-saving measure, the purpose for using it, the value of the grace that comes with suffering, and the value of the humility that comes with accepting biological reality.
And the child you create by natural conception has a say?
ETA: I'm pretty sure if I had had the choice I wouldn't have been born in to a world where there is so much intolerance and bigotry.
I'm not saying that's not logical because it certainly is. But the Catholic Church has a clear and adamant stance on life creation. Not life preservation. Not cancer treatment. Not CPR. Life creation. It has nothing to do with man conceiving of ideas. It has to do with the application of them in a Catholic's life. They use chemo. They don't use IVF. It's not a logic argument, it's a belief system. You don't have to agree with it, but it cannot be deemed incorrect just because you don't subscribe to it (general you).
This. I can see it being an issue if her insurance through the school and thus through the church was paying a portion of it. But if she was paying for it OOP or through her husband's insurance I don't think its any of the church's business.
I don't know why I can't quote.
Irish, I understand what their beliefs are and that they're their beliefs and I don't have to subscribe to them but, my point is that their beliefs are inconsistent. The fact that someone can believe that preserving life by unnatural means is any less playing God than creating life by unnatural means is pretty messed up. They can believe whatever they want I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in it.