I saw that on an espisode of L&O, it involves anal insertion of a miniature electric cattle prod. Church should be down with that, man, that’s cooler than a cilice! 
Every guy has a part of his brain stuck at the 13-year development point. I blame God.
A Catholic role model would attend mass regularly. A Catholic role model would marry a Catholic, or would agree that the children would be raised Catholic. Do you think she should be fired for these sins also?
The question Bricker needs to answer is if he thinks she qualifies as a minister.
nevermind
Kind of puts the lie to the whole “Catholic role model” theory, doesn’t it?
I think the “qualifies as a minister” line is a non-starter, myself. In fact, I think various parties lately have been a little too eager to bring up the “qualifies as a minister” issue, almost like they’re trying to demonstrate how “well-informed” they are because they happen to be aware of the recent SCOTUS ruling that determined, somewhat counter-intuitively, that someone could become a minister in a religion without their own knowledge.
shhhh No thinking in church!
No, but perhaps the term “role model” is not a good choice, especially since it’s not very well defined. Rather, an adult hired but the Catholic Church to supervise minor children in any way should not engage in activity considered by the Church to be a murder.
Abortion is considered murder by the RCC, and it considers the procedure this woman underwent to be a form of abortion.
However, if it’s true that the priest (or whoever) “told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are 'better left between the individual and God, the complaint said”, then the case is going to be weakened considerably, IMO. I don’t think a “don’t ask, don’t tell” type policy can fly in this type of circumstance where the priest seems to be more concerned with a potential scandal than the actual sin itself and its effect on the students.
Or nobody, since the Catholic Church forbids IVF altogether.
LOL!
Did you even need to ask the question, Bricker?
Like: When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters. Religious teachings cover the gamut from moral conduct to metaphysical truth, and both the content and credibility of a religion’s message depend vitally on the character and conduct of its teachers. A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about, those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful.”
Like that?
And you do remember that Hosanna Tabor was unanimous, right?
For the readers: this January, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the right of a religious school to fire a teacher who taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art and music; she also taught a religion class four days a week. I quoted part of a concurring opinion above.
John Mace, I’d think that the effect on the students is exactly what the priest was considering if he told her she should have kept quiet about IVF. Her pregnancy was not the issue, but the way it came about was. If she had just not said anything, people would have assumed it happened the natural way and the children would not have been exposed to a teacher who promotes a sinful act.
It seems to be it’s not about preventing a scandal, but about what the children are taught. I don’t see how that weakens the case.
Catholic here just for the record…
Does the fact that she actually taught religion make a difference? I think it does. If a teacher is employed to strictly teach math, it does not necessarily make her responsible for upholding the opinions of the employer unless it’s an understood and agreed to condition of employment.
A religion teacher on the other hand carries implied authority and a child cannot be expected to differentiate the teacher’s lessons from their private actions, leading to a true conflict.
I would support a teacher at my child’s Catholic school who if not Catholic did not live by Catholic ideology, with the reservation that the teacher not promote or discuss decisions Catholics do not approve of.
Frankly if the teacher kept her mouth shut in front of the students (regarding the nature of her pregnancy – and really is there any reason for them to be discussing it?) I think the administration should have been cool with that. They should have said “hey you’re here to teach, stick to that and if the subject comes up refuse to discuss it”
Wait wait, we’re all forgetting the real important issue here. Is the woman in this article really the same woman as in this article? Is that even possible?
I don’t know. I searched for Emily Herx at Google Images to look for “intermediate” images, but inconclusively.
But meanwhile, I don’t understand OP. Do “hot teachers” really make the baby Jesus cry?
Then you must feel that it is okay for a Catholic school to refuse to hire anyone but Catholics. Clearly this is permissible for those teaching religion or leading religious services - but is it for anyone else?
If not, is it okay to fire a non-Catholic teacher for using birth control? Is it okay for a Protestant church school to refuse to hire unsaved Jews? Papists? Muslims?
Let me be a bit clearer at what I’m getting at. I know of the Church’s position on IVF, but it is irrelevant. In deciding discrimination, I trust we all agree that the government should not be deciding what part of a religious organization’s position is important and which is unimportant. For ministerial employees, that means that the church has full reign to discriminate in ways that would be illegal in general - like marital status, for instance.
Now by this, if you think that a church should be able to discriminate in the same way for secular employees, that means any church would be able to discriminate for any reason they choose, so long as they call it religious. Further, if they buy property, they would be able to extend their discrimination with their purchases. The Moonies at one point had a lot of Brooklyn - is it okay for them to be able to fire any employees not swearing allegiance to the perfect master in newly purchased companies?
My odd examples were to demonstrate that anyone can suffer under this policy.
Google Image search of her brings up pictures that are all consistent with the one on CNN, with one exception. The only one that doesn’t resemble the others is the one on NYDailyNews.com. Apparently the latter posted somebody else’s pic by mistake.
The necessity to abort certain zygotes is the primary objection. The Biblical injunction against murder (Matthew 19:18 for instance) would be the motivator. It’s contingent on believing that ensoullment occurs at conception, which Catholics do.