Two or three ideas:
One, that the sexual act within marriage cannot be separated from potential fertility, and potential fertility cannot be separated from the sexual act. There is a sacredness and a total self-giving in the marriage act, and conception of children is not permitted outside of this sacredness.
Two, that IVF treats the embryos created as commodities not as human beings, and substitutes the physician’s will for the will of God - this embryo is not dividing well, discard it, these are extra, freeze them.
Three, a practical problem rather than an intrinsic problem, the death of discarded embryos, equivalent to abortion, or the direct abortion of extra fetuses within the womb.
The Church does permit the transfer of an unfertilized ovum from above a blocked fallopian tube to below the blockage. It permits hormonal treatment to trigger ovulation and support pregnancy. It permits intrauterine injection of sperm, provided that the sperm was collected during a normal act of intercourse in the marriage (via a condom with a few holes pricked in it.)
It does not permit insemination with the sperm of a man who is not the husband, nor the use of an ovum not from the wife. It does permit the adoption and implantation of frozen embryos.
So it isn’t that what occurs by nature must be God’s will. It’s a question of the limits on tweaking nature, and keeping those tweaks within the sacred nature of the marriage act. This can certainly look like hair-splitting, but there’s a complex consistency to it.
Back to the article - the teacher would never have had a problem if she hadn’t talked about it - who would ever have known how the baby was conceived? Was she unaware of the teachings of the Church, or did she decide to be confrontational?
I appreciate the thought you put into your reply. Thank you for that. I often like asking questions, to help understand those with viewpoints different than mine - I just try to be as respectful to othes, as I expect them to be to me and my faith.
That said, I know have a much better grasp of the ‘why’.
And I agree with your final assessment. She did not have to tell anyone what she did, as it was truly not anyone’s business. But, once she informed others about this - the church had no choice but to respond. She knew she was in violation of the morality clause of her employer, she went ahead and pursued this course of action, she made it known that she had flagrantly violated the contract of her employment - now she is demanding that ‘her’ morality over-rides the ‘morality’ of the person providing her paycheck. Too bad she threw what appears to be an outstanding career opportunity away.