lennavan: LovingTeacher: That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote

I realize that. That was the preceding sentence from the actual document you cited. Your source was farking stupid, so I went to the actual original source, like you should have and still should.

LovingTeacher: and further on in the posting on that web site was this

Why would you continue on at your stupid website? We already established it was stupid.

LovingTeacher: So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.

Yes, according to your stupid website, that is true. According to the actual original source, that is not true. Apparently you have chosen to go with the stupid website. Whatevs.

Though the web site was "stupid" it did correctly summarize the church's teaching on IVF.

Donum Vitae
Sec. 4a
"But from the moral point of view procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specific act of the spouses' union"


Sec. 4b
"Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons"

Sec. 5
"the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to
it.


I used the "stupid" website because it was a catholic apologist's website and I knew that it faithfully reported the catholic church's doctrine that the only moral way to make a baby is for married people to have sex with no birth control. I knew that because it was drummed into me from 3rd grade to 12th grade when I stopped going to the church. Yes we actually had a 1 hour lecture in third grade from a nun that told us in no uncertain terms condoms were equivelent to murder and "test-tube babies" where a special sort of evil that showed man thought he was god. Not only were the views over the top, not one of the friends that I walked home with that day knew exactly how a condom worked and we all thought girls were icky. I'm not sure why this supposedly virgin old lady thought that day was a great day to tell a group of 9 year olds they would go to hell if they ever used birth control but I guess you gotta start early or you'll lose them.

Based on Catholic orthodoxy, IVF is as bad as having like 10 abortions. So if she was making this public to people, especially students, that would be pretty bad.

Thank goodness we've spent billions of dollars in two separate wars to keep woman-hating religious nutjobs from destroying freedom in America.

I like her chest. Boobs appear to squash in her bra or hang down. Yuh! NSFW (NSFW)

Once again it is the private school's right to fire her for anything that goes against their teachings. That said, STOP farkING ACTING LIKE COCKS CATHOLICS. You lost me and nearly everyone my age I went to church with as a kid because you refuse to stop being to dicks to your fellow human beings.

lennavan: The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

If I'm reading this correctly, a couple who knows they are infertile (as is the case with the teacher and her husband) who continue to have sexual relations are sinning and going to hell.

That's about the attitude I would expect from a pedophile protecting organization.

not_an_indigo: A contract is a farking contract. Don't like it, don't sign it.

And yet we have centuries of civil cases arguing whether things in a contract are binding.

Their lord Jesus would be so proud, the 21st century and really the only way to 'ethically' keep policies of discrimination and hate is via a religious exemption clause.

SharkTrager: Except a priest can absolve you.

I don't pray to a priest.

Thank god the church likes to make such abortions of common sense. IU'D hate to have to work for some place like that.

I can't wait for the first janitor or lunch lady to be fired by a religious institution for the same grounds, just so we as a society can laugh our asses off when that religious institution claims that the janitor or lunch lady was a "minister" to avoid being sued.

Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Part of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lutheran Church -vs EEOC case was based on the fact that the Church had provided the teacher with housing; which indicated she was more than just a teacher (kind of like how a company grants car allowance to upper-level managers - not offered to lower-level employees or even supervisors - as an indication of the managers' level of importance to the company). In the matter of this thread's case, I don't think the teacher got similar housing priviledges in exchange for her teaching, plus there's the fact that she didn't teach religious classes.

lennavan: pute kisses like a man: we're not talking about janitors, we're talking about teachers. there is a difference. the teacher is set to teach whatever the institution wants taught. regarding teachers, they can require that you adhere to their religious teachings, thus avoiding the anti-discrimination laws set up to protect people from being discriminated against for religious purposes.

We're talking about an English teacher, not a religion teacher. There is a difference. The English teacher is set to teach English, not religion.

pute kisses like a man: i don't feel like researching on janitors, because that's not the issue. there are less exceptions for janitors, because they personal beliefs are not as significant to the institution's mission. let's try to deal with the topic. if you want to extrapolate, at least do so in kind.

I did. A janitor is on par with an English teacher with respect to the relevance of religion to their job. Same goes for math teachers. That may have been a shock to you.

If you're unhappy with the current law, write your congress people... I'm sure they'll find it politically interesting to reduce religious exceptions in employment law. i didn't state my opinion of what was appropriate, i stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares. in order to pass the law, they needed to have exceptions -- otherwise the law could have had constitutional complications and less support. Instead of naming the most precise job titles, which could have made the exceptions more complicated than necessary, they said teaching positions are exempted for religious institutions.

regardless, saying an english or math teacher is more like a janitor than a theology teacher is in poor form. try teaching english literature without a sound awareness of the bible. as a religious institution, perhaps you would want someone who is trained in and believes in those very references which are dealt with on a daily basis. just try to separate religion from literature. even atheists make reference to the judeo-christian tradition in such a manner that a lack of knowledge in the field is an extreme limitation on your literary vocabulary. regarding math, math is logic, logic begs the question of epistemology, which is in the parking lot, if not the ballpark of metaphysics. I'm sure everyone has a slightly different reason supporting the notion that mathematics are a worthwhile study. to the atheist, it's the faith that the world is rational. to the religious (if they study things like math and science) it's the faith that some god made the world rational. eventually the question will be asked, why do I have to study this crap? the religious institution would like a metaphysically coherent answer, so that the mission of their theology does not get hindered by a tangential teaching in a related field.

OgreMagi: lennavan: The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

If I'm reading this correctly, a couple who knows they are infertile (as is the case with the teacher and her husband) who continue to have sexual relations are sinning and going to hell.

That's about the attitude I would expect from a pedophile protecting organization.

That is correct. Married people using birth control are also sinning. God has a plan for you, contraception is violating that plan because while God is smart, he is not smart enough to counteract birth control. And while God is omnipotent, he was not able to foresee the invention of contraception.

pute kisses like a man: If you're unhappy with the current law, write your congress people... I'm sure they'll find it politically interesting to reduce religious exceptions in employment law. i didn't state my opinion of what was appropriate, i stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares.

Yes, and I stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares. Your opinion is wrong, mine is correct.

pute kisses like a man: Instead of naming the most precise job titles, which could have made the exceptions more complicated than necessary, they said teaching positions are exempted for religious institutions.

No they didn't. Wow, I mean wow. What's the line here? You're entitled to your own dumbfarkass opinion but not your own facts? Dude, you just completely made that up and pretended that was established law and factual. Wow are you a douche. No big deal if you are unaware of what the ruling was. No need to comment or reply, no need to form an opinion, or if you really want to comment, you can just say "I don't really know what the law is." But you just flat out made shiat up and pretended it was true. Wow you're a douche.

pute kisses like a man: regarding math

So you're going to argue math is like religion? I mean, we already established how fundamentally stupid your opinion was and why (because it is based on your made up world of facts). So I suppose naturally you believe math is just like religion. Whatevs dude.

JohnnyCanuck: See....I told you that I would teach you something today. Like I said, my brother, a little less arrogant today.

Jesus, get a room, you guys.

No-one wants to see all the fellating (mutual and self-administered) that's going on, here.

insertsnarkyusername: Once again it is the private school's right to fire her for anything that goes against their teachings.

Once, again: this is a mis-statement of the law. As has been explained many times in this very thread. ("Explained", you know, with citations to laws and rulings, =/= "just stated as fact", which is all that you did.)

FormlessOne: I can't wait for the first janitor or lunch lady to be fired by a religious institution for the same grounds, just so we as a society can laugh our asses off when that religious institution claims that the janitor or lunch lady was a "minister" to avoid being sued.

At the Zion AME mega-church just around the corner from my house, the guys who wave their hands and orange cone-tipped flashlights at the worshipers as they park their cars wear satin jackets with the following embroidered on the backs, from shoulder to shoulder:

"Parking Ministry".

I shiate you not.