Catholic School Teacher Fired for Having In Vitro

ABC News ^ | May 11, 2006

[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."

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.

[armydoc]

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.

[klossg]

"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."

[armydoc]

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?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"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?

[klossg]

"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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.

[klossg]

"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.'

[armydoc]

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".

[armydoc]

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

[Mrs. Don-o]

"A sex act performed with NFP or artifical BC is "open to procreation" proportional to the method's failure rate."

I think I understand what you're saying here. But it's a misunderstanding. "Openness to procreation" does not have anything to do with the method's "failure rate." This idea that a method's "chanciness" defines its "openness to life" is a false inference that a lot of people draw. That's why I never use the words "openness to procreation." It can be misinterpreted and cause unnecessary confusion.

What we're looking for here is, what is your stance toward sex? Do you think that healthy, natural sex --- pleasurable, emotionally satisfying, periodically fertile/infertile, expressing "I am yours, you are mine" ---is good the way God designed it? Do you think that human fertility is a holy thing, or do you think that fertility is a design flaw, a disease?

If women's bodies have a design flaw, a disease (fertility), you will attack it with drugs, devices, and surgery, just as if it were cancer, or an infestation of parasites. Contraception is based on the pathology paradigm of the female body.

On the other hand, if fertility is a holy thing, and a good part of a good design, then you practice sexual intercourse during your wife's fertile period when you're willing to accept the gift of a child; and you cherishingly refrain during that time when (for whatever reasons of health or hardship) you could not responsibly accept a child.

Either way it's respectful. It always gives homage to fertility as an awesome gift, because human life is an awesome thing: I could even say access to a fertile woman is an awesome thing, a gift: one which is respectfully accepted, or one which is respectfully declined. It says in an embodied way, "You were made right: I don't want to alter you. I will behave accordingly."

For the most part, contraception is an embodied insult to women. I mean that it embodies the message: if you were made right, you'd be available all the time. But you were made wrong, dammit. You need to be fixed.

[klossg]

I cannot say it any better than Mrs. Don-o has said it. Way to get to the point.

[armydoc]

On the other hand, if fertility is a holy thing, and a good part of a good design, then you practice sexual intercourse during your wife's fertile period when you're willing to accept the gift of a child; and you cherishingly refrain during that time when (for whatever reasons of health or hardship) you could not responsibly accept a child.

The issue is not abstinence during fertile periods. The issue is sex during infertile periods. This attitude/method intentionally tries to separate the sex act from procreation. In your "disease" analogy, NFP does look at fertility as a type of disease, like active herpes, to be avoided.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote:

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"...."

In this context, "procreative sex" means sex that is the way people normally procreate. You use your sex organ too put semen in your wife's genital tract. If you're infertile for reasons beyond your control (even if you have no viable sperm in your seminal fluid, or she has no uterus, or is post-menopausal) the form of the intercourse is still procreative, i.e. the way humans reproduce.

By way of contrast (ye cats, it's repugnant to write this way, but here goes): putting your semen in a warmed Mason jar is NOT "procreative sex," even if your wife scooped it right up with a turkey baster and got pregnant with it. It lacks the fully human form of the sexual embrace that it ought to have. It lacks the kind of union that makes things right.

[armydoc]

In this context, "procreative sex" means sex that is the way people normally procreate. You use your sex organ too put semen in your wife's genital tract.

My understanding that a "procreative intent" is also required, not just a "procreative form". If only "form" counts, then intercourse in the presence of artificial BC or when the woman has had a tubal ligation is "procreative" as well.

[klossg]

"The issue is sex during infertile periods."

No. The issue is not sex during infertile periods. The infertile periods are part of every woman's design. They are as much a part of each woman as are her fertile period. You cannot take either away ... both make up what a woman is.

The issue is sex thwarted during the fertile period or sex thwarted during the infertile period. Bad sex ... anything that gets in the way of a good sex act. And please do not say not having sex is bad in itself. Because, then we are all sinning right now, because we are not having sex but writing. Abstinence is not the same as having thwarted sex. The acts are distinct. "NFP does look at fertility as a type of disease, like active herpes, to be avoided"

NFP does not look at fertility as a disease. NFP respects fertility for what it is ... the potential to have a child and unite with your spouse at the same time. For example, a couple decides to help out the neighbors whose water pipes burst in the middle of the winter. They did this, and it caused them not to have sex, even when they were using NFP to try to get married.

If we follow your NFP treats fertility as a disease logic, we would say that helping neighbors was wrong. Just like NFP. But, everyone else would look at this and say, the couple that did not have sex, offered up their fertile night for the love of their neighbors. They made the choice and possibly grew in love, by abstaining from sex. Do you say that helping their neighbors is the same thing as saying that the couple sees their fertility as a disease?

[lastchance]

I wonder that this woman and her husband never bothered to find out what the Church taught on in vitro fertilization.
I have a feeling they were Catholics of convenience. What the Church taught was fine as long as it did not mean any change in their lives or behaviors.

The real pity is that there are so many children out there who need good, loving homes which I am sure this couple would have provided. I don't understand the atitude that thinks the pregnancy is the essential part of parenthood. It's not. If it is the joy of rearing and loving a child that a couple wants they should seriously consider adoption.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Sex during what you believe to be infertile periods is NOT sinful, even if you don't expect a baby to result, as long as, if pregnancy somehow DOES result, you welcome it.

The point is that when you have sex, you are "open" to the possibility of a pregnancy -- it's one thing to consider pregnancy very unlikely to result from a particular sex act, it's another thing entirely to not accept the pregnancy if it occurs. You're not thwarting God, because God never said "Thou shalt not have sex except in the fertile period", and God knows, women's cycles sometimes shift unpredictably.

The case of a couple who is medically infertile is different, but there is certainly nothing wrong with them having sex and no prohibition against it!

But if they THINK they're infertile and by some surprise become pregnant, as happens occasionally, they'd better be prepared to have the baby. If they got married only because they expected never to be bothered with children and wouldn't have gotten married if they expected children, then they shouldn't have gotten married. And if a couple of childbearing age and no medical issues intend to have no children, and tries to get married in the church, they will certainly be asked to make a commitment to welcome and raise the child if pregnancy occurs.

[ninenot]

The answer from Klossg is fine.

Understand that the view of the Romeneskos is essentially "reductionist,"--as are the Vagina Monologues, and the practice of homosexual relations.

It views the body as a machine, and utilizes the body's capabilities as one would a machine. And if that machine doesn't work the way WE think it should, then we go to the mechanic and get it fixed.

But conception of a child is not merely a mechanical function, nor is it a "right" by virtue of marriage.

[ninenot]

NFP works by natural means, not artificial means.

BIG difference.