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."
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."
Grammatical problem here. It means that
This is a critique of artificial reproduction. It does not refer to sex without procreation, but to procreation without sex. If procreation was deliberately accomplished outside of marital intercourse, it lacks something which is essential.
I don't blame you on this one, armydoc. It's what happens when you have something written IIRC in French, then translated into Latin, and then re-translated into English.
It is not morally required to "will" procreation when having sex. If this were the correct interpretation, it would be forbidden to have intercourse if either spouse were even temporarily infertile (e.g. during pregnancy, after menopause, etc.) This has never been the case. Therefore clearly this interpretation is based on a misunderstanding of the teaching.
Prior to the Lambeth conference (about 1930 or so) even Protestants taught contraception was sinful
Why, no, it's not that way at all. It's looking at fertility as something sacred. It's like Holy Communion. Sex with a condom is like receiving Holy Communion and then deliberately vomiting out the Sacred Host. If you're not properly prepared to receive the gift of Holy Communion, don't go through the motions and then spit it out. Just respectfully refrain.
Then you're talking about something that doesn't exist. The "act" under discussion is the "sex act", aka "intercourse". If that act is abstained from during the fertile period, there is no sin. The "sin factor" is having intercourse during the fertile period and interfering with the natural processes involved--condoms, pills, etc.
You're obviously trying to argue that "willing not to procreate" is the source of the sin, which it isn't.
Sorry, I disagree with you. This couple could have adopted a baby girl from China for less than the in vitro procedure cost them. God was not denying them parenthood and neither was the Catholic Church. Whether or not we agree with the Catholic doctrine opposing in vitro is irrelevant. She signed a paper stating she would live in accordance with Catholic doctrine. She made the mistake of making her defiance public knowledge by telling her principal. In the Church's eyes, she is a walking scandal. Her decision to protest her termination makes me sick.
Umhhh--context, army.
The cite is in reference to 'techniques,' not normal conjugal relations.
So what?
Wrong.
You conclude in accurately, insofar as the couple is OPEN to conception, even though it will (or most likely will) not occur.
Not the same as artificial contraception.
And, by the way, such practices are fully moral if practiced "for serious reason," which is another debate, but really that of the 'internal forum.'
It's standard Church-bashing dressed up with "I have a RIGHT to babies!" (at the age of 37, mind you,) and with pix of the babies.
Astoundingly, this matter did NOT arise as a "pressworth" incident until the babies were quite photogenic. That would be about 12 months from the time she announced her intentions, and 10+ months from the time she was fired.
I suspect that this woman's B-I-L is a highly influential journalist in Illinois who has pushed this story--or it would NEVER be national, much less regional.
"...when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act." This implies, not the presence of a conjugal act, but the absence of a conjugal act. This means that "willing" procreation is OK, but when procreation is not willed in the right way --- not willed as the fruit of a conjugal act --- it's lacking something.
I appreciate your restatement: it's actually an improvement on the original:
"Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union."
The "willed as" is just there to bring in the aspect of deliberateness, intentionality. Like if an embryonic child were brought into existence via IFV; then frozen and abandoned by its natural genetic parents; and then prenatally adopted by another couple who wanted to save it from being disposed of like trash --- this would be morally OK on the part of the adopting couple. They did not "will" the child to be begotten via a laboratory procedure or a commercial transaction; they're just rescuing it after the deed was done.
Thank you for your patience and your persistence.
In situation where it is not possible to conceive I think it is important for couples to remember why they want to be parents. I am not dismissing the joys of pregnancy but I am saying that a couple can be blessed with the joy of children through means other than conception.
I am adopted and my mother has told me how stressful trying to conceive was for her and my father. It put a lot of strain on their marriage. Of course this was way before the days of invitro and the advances in treating infertility. So truly their only option was adoption.
But never did I hear my mom or dad express regret that I was only their child after being born and not before.
Not worthy of response.
"Women take the pill for a few years and then have a lot of difficulty getting pregnant when they want to (which is immediately)."
Really? I took the pill for over 3 years, stopped in February and was pregnant by May. Lots of non pill users take longer to conceive than that.
This is just dumb.
Really? In the United States, it's dumb that a religiously affiliated institution fires someone who does not uphold its values?
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.