Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro
ABC News ^ | May 11, 2006

Posted on 05/12/2006 6:56:49 AM PDT by NYer

May 11, 2006 — - After five years trying to conceive, Kelly and Eric Romenesko decided to try in vitro fertilization.

Their twins, Alexandria and Allison, were born last year. It was a joyous event in the couple's life.

"They're miracles. They're precious," Kelly Romenesko said.

The couple were not prepared for what came next. When Kelly, a teacher at two Catholic schools in Wisconsin, told her bosses she had gotten pregnant through in vitro, they handed her a pink slip.

"I was in tears," she said. "I remember asking, 'Is this the only reason why I'm being fired?' They stated, 'Yes.'"

The schools say Romenesko agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired. One of those teachings was that the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception.

"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Church Doctrine

People like Joseph Capizzi of the Culture of Life Foundation said that in vitro fertilization ran counter to Catholic teachings, which stress that a child should be conceived through sex between a husband and wife.

"It's not so much that it's artificial that's the problem, instead it's removing the sexual act and procreative act from the context of marriage," he said.

The church also takes issue with in vitro because embryos are sometimes destroyed, but Romenesko said there were other teachers who had in vitro in the school. She said she did not go public with her announcement but "stated it to a principal behind closed doors that we were going through this process."

Romenesko appealed to the school board, but it would not reinstate her. Now a state agency is looking into the case. Meanwhile, the Romeneskos have stopped practicing Catholicism.

"I think the issue here is the fact that Kelly was released from her job for being pregnant, not the in vitro fertilization itself," Eric said. "Our daughters have been baptized Lutheran at this point in time. Kelly and I haven't converted yet."

"It wouldn't change my ability to teach in any way," she said. "It's a shame. This shouldn't have happened."


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; education; infertility; invitro; ivf; lutheran; teacher; wi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2006 6:56:54 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
"Advances in technology have now made it possible to procreate apart from sexual relations through the meeting in vitro of the germ-cells previously taken from the man and the woman. But what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first stages of his development."

DONUM VITAE Vatican document - Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation.

2 posted on 05/12/2006 6:57:56 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

just wondering how many years she took birth control pills.


3 posted on 05/12/2006 7:00:26 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat

We've seen several stories like this lately, including the single female teacher who was fired for getting pregnant and having the baby. It's interesting that Catholic educators don't seem to know Catholic doctrine. I'm not Catholic, and even *I* know the Catholic church doesn't approve of IVF; how could she have missed it?


4 posted on 05/12/2006 7:03:14 AM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is what comes to mind:

"My religion is so important to me that (a) I had no idea about one of its most controverisal but definitive doctrines, and (b) when I discovered that I had inadvertantly violated that doctrine I decided it was best to leave the Church."


5 posted on 05/12/2006 7:05:36 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (I love my German shepherd - Benedict XVI reigns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What are the going to teach??? Pocahontas was really an Indian boy? How Ru Paul broke sterotypes? The importance of Mr. Brady.


6 posted on 05/12/2006 7:06:58 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Whether I personally believe in this aspect of Catholic Doctrine or not...What a stupid defensive comment!!!! And from a teacher? Whaaaa!

People who choose Catholic schools are choosing - and deserve- Catholic doctrine in all aspects of their children's educational exposure. Including open personal behaviors by their teachers.

Buh Bye. Lots of openings in the public schools.
7 posted on 05/12/2006 7:07:25 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

Exactly.

And I bet she was offered an alternative, but instead she got so indignant that anyone dare question the morality of her decision that she losther job over the issue.


8 posted on 05/12/2006 7:07:51 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (I love my German shepherd - Benedict XVI reigns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nihil Obstat

and took them without knowing that doing so was considered objectively immoral


9 posted on 05/12/2006 7:09:20 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (I love my German shepherd - Benedict XVI reigns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

You'd think that the "bosses" would be happy to have a new member for the collection plate. Note to the teacher: Don't tell anyone at work about your procreation habits.


10 posted on 05/12/2006 7:11:42 AM PDT by Sterm26 (Death before Dhimmitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

The pill tends to age the reproductive system. Women take the pill for a few years and then have a lot of difficulty getting pregnant when they want to (which is immediately). She's 37 but looks a few years older than that. Just assuming that since she didn't know church teaching she probably has been on the pill most of her adult life.


11 posted on 05/12/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I think out "teachers and pastors" bear some of the blame for this. Has anybody ever, EVER heard a substantive sermon on Catholic sexual ethics? Even in passing? I figure I've got to about 5,000 Masses in my lifetime. I've heard NOTHING about John Paul II's magnificent "Theology of the Body," about 3 sermons which even mentioned abortion in passing (like a sentence or two: no real development or in-depth explanation), zero mention of contraception, and of course zero mention of IVF.

The level of knowledge of the majority of Catholic laity would have to rise to reach the level of abysmal. And that's a commentary on the level of teaching and preaching.

12 posted on 05/12/2006 7:15:12 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Credo in Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So let me get this straight, she didn't know Catholic doctrine but asked for and got a job teaching in a Catholic school so should there be a test, a Catechism test? YES And, having been fired for violating Church doctrine, she up and dumps her faith? Guess it wasn't that important to her. A humble and contrite heart with Confession would be good... and then, having been forgiven, she and her husband devote themselves to raising their children.


13 posted on 05/12/2006 7:15:30 AM PDT by Mercat (It's still Easter and we are the Easter people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Coke Employee Fired for Drinking Pepsi
14 posted on 05/12/2006 7:16:11 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

Because --strange as it may seem--no priest ever said from the pulpit that IVF is against church teaching. There is a whole generation of priests who are in dissent from Catholic sexual teachings but who sin largely in omission. You think the CIA is ""diss"functional, consider the Catholic priesthood. Seldom do we hear "hard teachings." that cut to the core. You can see here an example of what they fear. Don't make them choose. Tell them the truth and and they cannot bear it.


15 posted on 05/12/2006 7:18:25 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sometime in the future …

Kelly and Eric Romenesko conceive twins. Their two 6 year old boys were attending religious school and giving the teachers problems. The teachers had tried everything to make them behave - time outs, notes home, missed recesses - but could do nothing with them. Finally the boys were sent to see the priest.

The first boy went in and sat in a chair across the desk from the priest. The priest asked, "Do you know where God is?" The little boy just sat there.

The priest stood up and asked again, "Son, do you know where God is?" The little boy trembled but said nothing.

The priest leaned across the desk and again asked, "Do you know where God is?"

The little boy bolted out of the chair ran past his twin brother in the waiting room, all the way home. He got in bed and pulled the covers up over his head. His brother had followed him home asked, "what happened in there?"

The boy replied, "God is missing and they think we did it!"


16 posted on 05/12/2006 7:23:28 AM PDT by schaketo (Not all who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I thought that the newer in vitro techniques were possible to effect without killing embryos?
If so, what is the problem?


17 posted on 05/12/2006 7:37:39 AM PDT by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The level of knowledge of the majority of Catholic laity would have to rise to reach the level of abysmal. And that's a commentary on the level of teaching and preaching.

Exactly so. You ask the laity what it means to follow "Catholic teaching," and chances are real good that it means (a) don't have an abortion and (b) be nice to other people. End of story.

This article hits home because we have teenage twins in our parish who were conceived in a petri dish. I know this because their story was featured in a big article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution written to promote in-vitro fertilization. Not a word in the story about the Church's opposition to the whole business. I wonder if the parents even know.

18 posted on 05/12/2006 7:38:45 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

In vitro: I wonder how many babies were sacrified in the petrie dish to produce those twins???


19 posted on 05/12/2006 7:48:36 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

"I think out "teachers and pastors" bear some of the blame for this. Has anybody ever, EVER heard a substantive sermon on Catholic sexual ethics? Even in passing? I figure I've got to about 5,000 Masses in my lifetime. I've heard NOTHING about John Paul II's magnificent "Theology of the Body," about 3 sermons which even mentioned abortion in passing (like a sentence or two: no real development or in-depth explanation), zero mention of contraception, and of course zero mention of IVF."

I have heard a few sermons mentioning abortion. I have heard NONE about in vitro.
Many embryos die in the in vitro process. Several are implanted with the understanding that some of them will not "take". Others are frozen and stored in case none of the embryos implant properly.
I know a couple who lost one embryo in the process and now they have more on ice. Since they don't intend to have more children - what is to become of the frozen embryos?

People think their right to have children supercedes the embryos' right to be born.


20 posted on 05/12/2006 7:48:52 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rogator
rogator: "what is the problem?"

Great question! In simple terms: In Vitro takes everything wonderful and unitive about sex and separates it into a scientific experiment conducted in a laboratory. On the other hand, God is love. God gave us sex, thank God! Sex is love. Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative. In Vitro is only procreative. (The opposite problem of contraception). To be clear, the Church is not talking about the birth process, which will be very unitive. The Church is talking about the conception process alone.
21 posted on 05/12/2006 7:55:06 AM PDT by klossg (GK - God is good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: klossg
Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative. In Vitro is only procreative. (The opposite problem of contraception).

NFP clearly violates the "spirit", if not the "letter", of this principal. The goal of NFP is to have sexual relations without conception, correct? No, NFP is not 100% successful in preventing conception, but neither is any artificial form of BC. It's only a matter of degree. Yes, I realize that OCP's can prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum, essentially an abortion; this is a separate matter. But other methods such as a condom, a diaphragm, or spermicidal foam do not have this effect. These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?
22 posted on 05/12/2006 8:08:17 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Im a Catholic, and I understand Church Doctrine. But this case stinks. In a day and age where people are fighting for the right to abort babies, a couple who is unable to conceive, shouldnt be punished for their inability to do so. The Church should quietly re-instate her. All to often, the Church will take a step forward and then two back..


23 posted on 05/12/2006 8:11:23 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Kerry-Mcarthy in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
In a day and age where people are fighting for the right to abort babies, a couple who is unable to conceive, shouldnt be punished for their inability to do so.

She wasn't punished for her 'inability' to conceive. She was let go for not following church doctrine.

24 posted on 05/12/2006 8:19:52 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I wonder how many babies were sacrified in the petrie dish to produce those twins???

The news report conveniently ignores that aspect of catholic doctrine in its coverage. The couple are the 'victims'; not the babies sacrificed in the petrie dish.

25 posted on 05/12/2006 8:26:04 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I know a couple who is heartbroken because they cant conceive. Sometimes concessions should be made. The Church has enough black eyes without going looking for more. Im not trying to obstinate, nor argumentaive. I just think this could have been handled better,as two Catholics have bolted..


26 posted on 05/12/2006 8:29:34 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Kerry-Mcarthy in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rogator; Mrs. Don-o; Notwithstanding
I thought that the newer in vitro techniques were possible to effect without killing embryos?

Newer? What has changed? The woman's ovaries still need to be stimulated with hormones to overproduce eggs. The eggs are still siphoned out during a surgical procedure. The husband has to 'produce' on the spot so 'conception' can take place in a petrie dish. How natural is that!

27 posted on 05/12/2006 8:51:46 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.
28 posted on 05/12/2006 8:52:32 AM PDT by Xenalyte (Pudding won't fill the emptiness inside me . . . but it'll help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
I just think this could have been handled better,as two Catholics have bolted.

The teacher stated, "I did not know what the Catholic doctrine stated against in vitro fertilization. Yes, I signed a contract, but the contract was vague in my opinion. I didn't know what I was doing as far as in vitro goes that that went against doctrine. My understanding was it was the Ten Commandments."

Although this brings up her qualifications to teach in a Catholic school, as, at least at the Elementary age, all teachers are required to teach religion, I would tend to agree with you, if the statement I quoted was a truthful one.

Not that I am compromising on the issue of IVF. Rather, a person must be aware of the sinfulness of an act in order to be held accountable for that act. If she is telling the truth, then it would be obvious that she was not properly catechized.

29 posted on 05/12/2006 8:54:12 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

I believe that the Catechism would tend to disagree with you a bit.

30 posted on 05/12/2006 9:01:54 AM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4; NYer
I know a couple who is heartbroken because they cant conceive. Sometimes concessions should be made.

My husband and I were also in that same situation. It indeed is a heartache that never goes away. We spent an awful lot of money going to specialists on two continents, before finally letting go of the decision to the Creator. We'd had enough of undignified, even painful treatments and procedures that stripped the joy from our personal life and made having a baby not just a goal but an obsession. Our two adopted children are ours in every way, not the least of which because we know they were direct answers to prayer.

We never even considered IVF. We're not Catholic, but agree on that point--"culling" unborn children to ensure that only the strongest survive is, in my mind, ghoulish and just wrong. Having said that, I cannot impute motives to the couple in question. Perhaps they closed their ears to that point. Perhaps their desire to have biological children (a God-given, incredibly strong drive) overcame their good reason. Why would the woman have mentioned her method of conception at work if she'd had any inkling it would cost her so dearly?

In any case, what does the Catholic Church propose in a situation like this? Are people drummed out? Do they refuse baptism to the children? Is there a process to reinstate or legitimize the family somehow? Just curious.

31 posted on 05/12/2006 9:07:21 AM PDT by Scothia ( When something important is going on, silence is a lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: klossg; rogator
In vitro, like artificial insemination, is essentially a veterinary practice. There is nothing wrong with in vitro fertilization for pets, farm animals, endangered species and other non-human entities.

The problem with human in-vitro fertilization is that it is a subhuman way to conceive a creature who has the dignity of being, in fact, sacred: an image of God.

It comes down to the question of: is sex sacred, ir isn't it? The Church teaches that for humans (all humans, not just Catholics), sex IS sacred. For us, is it a constitutive element of a sacrament, the Sacrament of Matrimony -- which means that marital lovemaking is actually a channel which God uses to make you holy!

Since human beings are God's image-bearers, marital sexual love is the only appropriate way to bring them into being. In other words (it sounds strange to our totally crass and secularized ears, but here it is): only sexual intercourse is sufficiently dignified to bring a human person into existence with his/her dignity intact.

"Begotten, not made." That means a lot. Something that is "made" is a product, and products are inherently inferior to the producer. A product is a commodity. A commodity is a thing -- something which can be owned or discarded, bought, sold, traded, used. (Which is exactly what can be done wih an IVF embryo.) But a creature which is begotten has exactly the same nature and dignity as the one who begot him.

This kind of thinking may seem kind of high-altitude and rarefied at first, but it's clearer if you look at artificial procreation as a whole, and where it is headed. It is clearly headed toward taking humans out of the "person" category and into the "product" category. Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" or C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man."

32 posted on 05/12/2006 9:08:14 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In defense of sex. No compromise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scothia
We spent an awful lot of money going to specialists on two continents, before finally letting go of the decision to the Creator. We'd had enough of undignified, even painful treatments and procedures that stripped the joy from our personal life and made having a baby not just a goal but an obsession. Our two adopted children are ours in every way, not the least of which because we know they were direct answers to prayer.

Like you, been there and done that. Congratulations on your decision, from one adoptive parent to another.

In any case, what does the Catholic Church propose in a situation like this? Are people drummed out? Do they refuse baptism to the children? Is there a process to reinstate or legitimize the family somehow? Just curious.

The Catholic Church provides the Sacrament of Reconciliation for those who have sinned - that's all of us :-). The children are ALWAYS welcome into the Church through Baptism.

In this particular instance, the parents have unnecessarily chosen to separate themselves from the Church, through arrogance and self-righteousness. They can always come home.

33 posted on 05/12/2006 9:20:22 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I love your posts! They are filled with precise information, presented in a clear thinking approach. Thank you!


34 posted on 05/12/2006 9:22:02 AM PDT by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: armydoc
You wrote: "[The]condom, diaphragm, or spermicidal foam do not have this [abortive] effect. These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?"

It's not an inconsistency; not if you look at in terms of means and ends.

First of all, it's not inherently wrong to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Under some circumstances, it's even a moral obligation. So if the "end" is morally OK --- which we agree could be the case --- then we have to consider the "means." (Obvious examples: "we're getting an abortion" would be an immoral means. So would "we're confining our sexual expression to video pornography & masturbation.")

Contraceptive action is wrong because it violates the Creator's design for the body. It actively opposes something which is a good healthy part of the design (fertility) as if it were a defect or a disease.

NFP isn't wrong because there's no contraceptive action. The couple is not thwarting, but cooperating with the periodic fertile/infertile female cycle.

Please understand that there's a huge moral difference between "acting in harmony" with your sexual design, and "sabotaging" it.

NFP means abstaining to avoid pregnancy. Avoiding pregnancy can be a morally un-objectionable end. Abstaining --- as long as it is mutually agreed upon, and for a sufficiently grave reason --- is a morally un-objectionable means.

36 posted on 05/12/2006 9:53:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In the image and likeness of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: armydoc

most of the people I know who use NFP are actually using it to GET pregnant.


38 posted on 05/12/2006 10:01:11 AM PDT by Nihil Obstat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Scothia
"...what does the Catholic Church propose in a situation like this? Are people drummed out? Do they refuse baptism to the children? Is there a process to reinstate or legitimize the family somehow? "

My heart goes out to this couple, despite they fact that they cooperated with something that was gravely morally defective, because it's quite possible that they never even guessed there was anything wrong with this.

In any case, they shouldn't have walked out. (They weren't kicked out; they bolted.) If they want to come back, they need to find a priest they can talk to, to help them honestly sort out their degree of moral responsibility. For their own peace of mind. And then they need to repent (like we all do) and seek absolution through Confession.

I am very grateful for the Sacrament of Confession. Getting things sorted out with God really does lift a great burden from your shoulders.

39 posted on 05/12/2006 10:07:55 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Wisdom from above is full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer

There must be some tort lawyers salivating to be hired for this one.


40 posted on 05/12/2006 10:12:11 AM PDT by verity (The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: armydoc
"These methods have in common with NFP the deliberate thwarting of the procreative ideal. Why the inconsistency?"

There is no inconsistency. Church dogma says that every sex act between husband and wife should be "open to procreation". In NFP, the couple abstains from sexual activity during fertile periods. If there is no sex act, there is no sin. On the other hand, if there "is" a sex act, and it is NOT "open to procreation", then there is sin.

41 posted on 05/12/2006 10:12:32 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
First of all, it's not inherently wrong to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy.

I was challenging klossg's assertion that "Christ and the Church teach that every sex act, as designed by our loving God, should be both unitive and procreative." NFP is the deliberate act of abstinence during fertile periods, reserving sex for infertile periods. Thus, "every sex act" is not intentionally procreative. The intent of sex during the nonfertile periods, then, is for reasons other than procreative. The fact that there is no "artificial" barrier to contraception seems to me to be a distinction without meaning. It seems to me that God looks at the intent, not form. If sex with the intent of not conceiving is sinful, means (timing vs device) is irrelevant. But, that's one of the reasons I am no longer Catholic. Obviously you see no inconsistency. I'm happy it works for you.
42 posted on 05/12/2006 10:30:49 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: armydoc
"The goal of NFP is to have sexual relations without conception, correct?"

You make a good point that the ends are the same when NFP and contraception are used to avoid conception. But with NFP, the goal is not always to do so. If you wanted to reduce NFP to one goal, you could say that its goal is to educate couples to determine the fertile period of the woman. NFP can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy. It never stops fertility or forces infertility in order to have sexual relations without conception. Instead NFP sits back in awe and understanding of the potential, until both the husband and wife desire to accept what fertility may bring.

If the couple's goal is to avoid conception, NFP observes and if infertile, allows sexual relations. If on the other hand the woman is fertile, NFP users choose not to have sexual relations. NFP does not change the fertility or infertility - in order to allow sexual relations, regardless. It is love with respect for the responsibility that love brings/allows.

For example in the Byrds old song of "Turn, Turn, Turn" they sing along with NFP users "A time to plant, a time to reap. ... A time you may embrace, A time to refrain from embracing." But if the Byrds were to sing this song with contraception users it would go "It's always time to plant. And you never need to reap, unless you choose to. ... A time you may embrace, A time you may embrace again."
43 posted on 05/12/2006 10:36:35 AM PDT by klossg (GK - God is good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
On the other hand, if there "is" a sex act, and it is NOT "open to procreation", then there is sin.

A sex act performed with NFP or artifical BC is "open to procreation" proportional to the method's failure rate. NFP, performed properly, has a 2-10% failure rate. Condoms have a 15% failure rate. Thus, it could be argued that sex using a condom is more "open to procreation" than NFP. On the other hand, sex between a couple in which the woman had a hysterectomy for health reasons is not at all "open to procreation". Sinful?
44 posted on 05/12/2006 10:43:11 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: armydoc; klossg
"If sex with the intent of not conceiving is sinful, means (timing vs device) is irrelevant."

But, to repeat: sex with the intent of not conceiving is not sinful. Even if the couple is naturally infertile (as they are for at least 2 weeks of every month), sexual union is still a "good" by which they embody their gift of themselves to each other. The pleasure bond is still there, and still a positive value.

If the Catholic Church taught that married couples can only have sex when they want to have a baby, they wouldn't be allowed to have sex when the woman is pregnant, or post-menopausal, or even in the infertile part of her cycle. This has never been the case.

The church does teach, though, that for an act to be moral, both the intention and the means must be moral. Abstinence is not morally wrong. Is it?

45 posted on 05/12/2006 10:47:53 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing." Ecclesiates 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
"Sometimes concessions should be made."

The couple made it. They wanted the children more than a job at a Catholic school that actually upholds what the church teaches.

Sorry, couldn't pass it up. Too much of a lob.

But, I do appreciate the pain of not being able to have children. My wife has had a miscarriage and it is terrible. I feel for anyone with this problem.
46 posted on 05/12/2006 10:48:35 AM PDT by klossg (GK - God is good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: armydoc
"NFP, performed properly, has a 2-10% failure rate. Condoms have a 15% failure rate. Thus, it could be argued that sex using a condom is more "open to procreation" than NFP."

Nope. You missed the point about abstaining. If no sex act occurs, there is no sin, whether the point is to avoid procreation or not.

"On the other hand, sex between a couple in which the woman had a hysterectomy for health reasons is not at all "open to procreation". Sinful?"

Nope. Just because the woman is rendered infertile by factors beyond her control doesn't mean she is committing a sin by having sex. On the other hand, if she has had a tubal ligation with the specific view of preventing pregnanacy, than she HAS sinned.

47 posted on 05/12/2006 10:51:21 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: armydoc
"the intent of not conceiving is sinful"

No. The intent of not conceiving is in no way sinful. If that was the case, then sex with your wife during pregnancy would be sinful. Sex with your wife after menopause would be incredibly sinful. Christ calls us to love too. Otherwise he would have made women capable of conceiving during pregnancy and there would be no such thing as menopause.

Please don't continue to be wound up about NFP and Contraception being the same thing. (NFP is birth control but it is not contraception). It is not inconsistent to see NFP as a good and contraception as an evil. Well, if you still think it is the same thing ... then use NFP and recommend it to your kids. It is cheaper! They'll understand since 'it is the same.'
48 posted on 05/12/2006 11:05:50 AM PDT by klossg (GK - God is good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
But, to repeat: sex with the intent of not conceiving is not sinful.

I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how the act of sex with the express desire not to conceive, employing a method to achieve that end, is "procreative".
49 posted on 05/12/2006 11:12:24 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: klossg

How is the sex act in the hysterectomy example "open to procreation"?


50 posted on 05/12/2006 11:16:34 AM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson