Although I support Ms. Romenesko's right to use IVF and also to keep her job, I've actually always found the Catholic Church's ban on IVF to be weirdly comforting. At least it's consistent with the no-contraception policy; although Ratzinger's writing here doesn't really make sense (how does IVF violate marriage exactly?), I always found it consistent within a "leave it up to God, you can't play God" perspective. I also found it comforting that they were willing to disappoint rich, white Westerners (the usual IVF set) as well as the contraception-seeking Third World poor. It's like, wow, these guys aren't picking on the poor, they just don't have compassion for ANYONE! Wow, I feel better.

If anything, this is a real warning to the wise about keeping your mouth shut at work. Ms. Romenesko probably thought she would get support from people she trusted--whoops! They were in the wrong to fire her, of course, and her case may help someone in the future, but she would have been better off not telling anyone.

Though the courts will likely rule that it was the schools' prerogative to fire her since they are private schools, I feel quite certain that this will have an adverse affect on the schools and Catholicism. I'm inclined to think that women teachers, rather than being forced to follow these strict and unrealistic (and bizarrely archaic) doctrines, will likely find themselves looking elsewhere for work...

...And the Catholic Church will continue to lose members as more and more people feel increasingly unwelcome and alienated by the Church.

she knew that it was contrary to Catholic teaching, and thus her job contract, and did it anyway. And announced that she was going to do it, and then that she had done it. And then was upset that she got fired? If my job contract says that I can't smoke in the building, and I tell everyone that I am going to smoke in the building, and then I do smoke in the building and tell everyone about it, and then I get fired, can I really be heard to complain? In her case, there was the additional fact that she taught Catholic school, and was openly defying Catholic teaching.

That said, it does appear that her use of IVF was at least arguably consistent with Catholic teaching, because they didn't destroy any embryos, used their own sperm and egg, and had the children in the context of a marriage. In which case, it's really a matter of canon law, not civil law, whether that violated Catholic teachings and thereby justified her termination. A jury of laity, many if not all of whom will not even be Catholic, isn't really equipped to decide the details of Catholic doctrine.

In essence, this is really a case about contract interpretation--did she violate the terms of her employment? If she didn't like those terms, she could have refused the job. You can think it's a stupid doctrine, or a stupid job condition, and you can rant and rave about how unbelievably stupid you think the Church is, but that doesn't change the fact that *she agreed to abide by it.* Unless she can show that other employees who were also known to have violated Catholic teaching were not fired, or that she consulted with her employer prior to undergoing IVF to ensure that she was not violating any doctrine, or that they really fired her for some other discriminatory reason, I'm not sure she has much of a case.

Please don't yell at me.

I wonder if there are any teachers at her school who are divorced and remarried, and if this is public knowledge...

I went back and read the document on IVF, and the Church is quite clear that even if the participants in IVF are married, and even if they take every precaution to avoid the destruction of embryos, IVF is not morally licit.

I'm not sure it's right to say the Church has no compassion for infertile couples. The same document that condemns IVF notes that infertile couples do suffer and need support and compassion, and that their desire for a child is very natural, legitimate, and commendable. But it follows that by pointing out that no one has the right to have a child--because a child is not property, but a gift. "The child is not an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, the supreme gift and the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the mutual giving of his parents." It encourages sterile couples to consider adoption, work with disadvantaged children, etc., and encourages the efforts of researchers to prevent and cure infertility. The entire doctrine is consistent with Catholic teaching about the dignity of all life.

... and every single teacher in this school will have to be fired, because there isn't a Catholic alive who hasn't violated some point of church teaching and/or canon law during his or her lifetime. (I don't care how pious and conservative you are.)

Here's what the Man Himself had to say about the subject of sin and judgement. From the New American Bible:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"

They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

(John 8 3:7)

God forbid that a Catholic school administrator should try to act like Christ or something.

Although I'm sure it won't lessen anyone's ire with regard the story, the woman was not fired specifically because she had invitrofertilization, but because she announced the fact to her superiors. Other women at the school had invitrofertilization treatments as well, but had not made a point to publicize it in the school. If asked they apparently admitted it, as the fact was known, but they did not volunteer this information to their class or the faculty, and thusly we’re not questioning the Church’s teaching.

As you might expect a centuries old institution founded on dogmatic moral and religious ideas does not particularly like people who exist outside its auspices and questionin their ideas. Although to those outside the group their ideas may seem silly, what group’s ideas don’t seem silly to those outside the group?

To the Church life is sacred and holy, and is only to be created in the way God intended, at the time God intends. Now if you violate these rules, you are in a state of sin. But all Catholics (the Pope included) are perpetually in a state of sin of one kind or another. Sin is turning away from God, and placing your wisdom above God’s own. As a Catholic you are allowed to not understand a teaching of the Church, and even feel that exceptions to a rule may exist, and this is not a sin. Blasphemy in the Church only exists when you say the Church is wrong and you are right, it is an act of hubris and thusly considered sinful. It is not that you sin that upsets the Church, but that you then say that what you have done is no sin at all. Within Catholicism all sins are forgivable, except for the sin of not seeking forgiveness.

As far as sex and condoms go, the Church feels that sex should only be between a married couple and that wearing a condom is Man’s smirking hubris saying to God, “I will enjoy the gift of sex, but face none of the responsibility”. If you are not married, and you have sex, again that is a sin, so why would you care if wearing a condom were considered a sin in addition to the sin of non-marital sex? If you are going to have non-marital sex, not wearing a condom is foolish, as any one can tell you. But people seem to want the Church to accept their notions of morality and not the other way around.

Sex between a married person with Aids and their spouse is a gray area that the church is wrestling with, obviously you should not put yourself at risk as that would be akin to suicide, which is also a sin. The Church would normally argue, if it is a concern, then simply don’t have sex. But sex between married couples is sacred, so there is a great deal of debate on this issue in the Church. Most likely the church will find that for married couples, where one has Aids, sex with a condom is allowable. There is no hypocrisy here, simply the very arduous task of learning to deal with the world in which we live while maintaining a moral center.

People hate the Church, we know, we got it, that’s why there are protestants. As a Catholic I do not worry about what the Arch Bishop of Canterbury says on matters of faith when they disagree with my own, just as I don’t worry when a Pat Robertson says something stupid. He does not speak for me or my people. When I hear of a local priest of bishop spouting off on something silly, I feel free to ignore him as well, he is not the Pope, and he does not have supremacy over doctrine. To me these people are simply another quack when I disagree with them, and are wise scholars when I don’t. The pope has never taken a stance that I truly and deeply disagree with. Although, harsh language has been used with regards to homosexual acts, I think these are not particularly worse than the words used to describe masturbation, gluttony or drunkenness, sins I, as a Catholic, have been guilty of over the years, and sins one could say one is predisposed to. The Church has also said that all love comes from God, this is always in a separate statement but its meaning can not be ignored. It is a delicate balancing act that the Church must face, to balance a quest for goodness, and an avoidance of clever twisting of its words to justify sinful acts. I’m sorry my faith doesn’t speak to you, but why should you care that it doesn’t? I don’t care that Anglicanism, Lutheranism, or Hinduism does not speak to me?

I don’t know why people want the Pope to bless their activities. If you believe that this man is truly holy, and blessed with the burden of the papacy by God, then shouldn’t you just let God reveal his truth to Man at his own pace? And if you do not believe this, than isn’t the Pope just another man, with no legal authority or power over you that you disagree with. The Pope has no battalions with which to conquer sovereign nations, so you need not fear his opinions.

If someone can explain why the non Catholic world would want my Pope to give them sex advice, I would really like to understand this.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my humble thoughts.