NBC Cheers 'One Woman's Battle Against Infertility and the Restrictions of the Catholic Church'
At the top of Thursday's NBC Nightly News, fill-in anchor Savannah Guthrie proclaimed: "Fired for trying to get pregnant. Tonight, the teacher versus the Catholic school." Guthrie was referring to Indiana Catholic school teacher Emily Herx claiming she was fired after receiving in vitro fertilization treatments and touted the case as "another legal showdown over religious and reproductive rights."
In the report that followed, correspondent Katy Tur declared: "It is one woman's battle against infertility and the restrictions of the Catholic Church." After promoting Herx's allegation that parish Monsignor John Kuzmic called her "a grave immoral sinner" for having the treatment, a sound bite played of Herx lamenting: "My husband was heartbroken, my family was heartbroken. It's been very emotional and traumatic for all of us."
Tur fretted over the Church's unwillingness to compromise its moral principles: "Herx says she appealed to Bishop Kevin Rhodes. In her lawsuit, she says he called the procedure "an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it." Even Herx's circumstances. Doctors told her after the birth of her first child that she had become medically infertile."
On Thursday's NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry interviewed Herx and began by sympathetically observing: "You know, IVF treatments are tough enough, but you started this job fresh out of college you've been at it for all this time, seven years, this has got to be emotional for you." Herx replied: "It's been a very emotional time for both of us and actually my whole family. We've struggled trying to wrap our minds around what's happened here....it was awful."
Later in the segment, Curry turned to Herx's husband and wondered: "Brian, to watch your family go through this, I can see the sadness in your eyes. How much has your family been hurt by this?" Brian Herx responded: "We've been extremely hurt by this. You know, she was dedicated to the school. She loved the students there, loved what she did there, and unfortunately, you know, it was all ripped away from her."
In fairness to Curry, she did put some challenging questions to Emily Herx and her attorney Kathleen Delaney:
CURRY: The diocese says that it supports fertility treatments but not those that go against Church doctrine. And that includes IVF because it says, quote, "that these frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos." Can you see – can you respect why the Church has taken that position?
KATHLEEN DELANEY: I think that's a question that is more for the legal analysis, Ann, and we're not arguing with the Church about what its doctrines are. The claim is based on the fact that employers need to respect anti-discrimination laws.
CURRY: But, however, I want to ask you about this, Kathleen, because the Church is denying any discrimination in this case and says that the lawsuit is a challenge of the Church's right, quote, "as a religious employer to make religious-based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis." And as you know, earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-discrimination laws allow ministerial exception for religious workers. So is not Emily a religious worker?
DELANEY: The ministerial exception has not been completely defined by the United States Supreme Court yet. And this case will help set the standards for other employees and other employers. But we don't believe that Emily fits within the ministerial exception, and her facts are distinguishable from that case. The teacher in that other case was a Lutheran minister. She had a title of a minister. She taught religion courses. And she had to go through religious training and education as a condition of her employment. None of those facts are present in Emily's case.
CURRY: Did you ever think, Emily, that maybe you should not speak up and say to your employer in this case, guided by a diocese, that you were going – undergoing IVF treatments?
HERX: The unusual part about this is from day one from my interview, my employer asked me when I was going to start a family and how many kids I was going to have. And after I got pregnant with my first son, she asked me when I was going to have another child. So she made it a very personal issue from the get-go.
NBC failed to bring on anyone to stand up for the Church's position. Tur wrapped her Nightly News report with another statement from Herx: "I'm proud because my 7-year-old, one day he's going to know that his mom stood up for what is right."
Here is a full transcript of Tur's April 26 Nightly News report:
7:00PM ET TEASE:
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Fired for trying to get pregnant. Tonight, the teacher versus the Catholic school.
7:13AM ET TEASE:
GUTHRIE: And still ahead as Nightly News continues, the teacher who says she was fired by her Catholic school for fertility treatments. Well, now she's taking the Church to court.
7:15AM ET SEGMENT:
GUTHRIE: In Indiana tonight, a former teacher at a Catholic school is suing the Diocese of Fort Wayne. She says she was fired from her job because she was trying to get pregnant using the fertility treatment IVF. The case could lead to another legal showdown over religious and reproductive rights. Here's NBC's Katy Tur.
KATY TUR: It is one woman's battle against infertility and the restrictions of the Catholic Church. Emily Herx taught literature and language at this Catholic school. She says she was fired for trying to expand her family and has filed a lawsuit claiming the Catholic school's monsignor refused to renew her contract and called her "a grave immoral sinner."
EMILY HERX: My husband was heartbroken, my family was heartbroken. It's been very emotional and traumatic for all of us.
TUR: At issue was the way in which Herx was trying to get pregnant, in vitro fertilization. Herx says she appealed to Bishop Kevin Rhodes. In her lawsuit, she says he called the procedure "an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it." Even Herx's circumstances. Doctors told her after the birth of her first child that she had become medically infertile.
The diocese here in Fort Wayne says Herx was not a victim of discrimination, that it had the right as a religious employer to make decisions consistent with its religious standards. In a statement, the school said it, "has clear policies requiring that teachers in its schools must, as a condition of employment, have a knowledge of and respect for the Catholic faith and abide by the tenets of the Catholic Church."
DOUGLAS LAYCOCK [UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA]: I'm sure the Church is going to say that having a teacher in a Catholic school that undermines Church doctrine in this way and models that for students is an undue hardship.
TUR: In Januray, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that church employees who pass on a religious message cannot sue for job discrimination, but Emily Herx says she teaches only language and literature, not Catholic doctrine, and therefore should be allowed to sue.
HERX: I'm proud because my 7-year-old, one day he's going to know that his mom stood up for what is right.
TUR: Herx is not only asking for her job back, but also for compensation for emotional distress and mental anguish. Katy Tur, NBC News, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Fr John does not have it in
Submitted by Edhenry on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:26pm.
Fr John does not have it in his heart, mind or sprit to be portrayed this way
Are you from Fort Wayne Ed? I
Submitted by dr2b on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:22pm.
Are you from Fort Wayne Ed?
I completely agree. I actually have been a member of that parish and went to that school from 1st to 8th grade. It doesn't fit Msgr. Kuzmich to call someone a "grave immoral sinner." He was never much of a fire and brimstone type.
I can't believe any priest
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:30pm.
I can't believe any priest would call someone a "grave immoral sinner."
(Is there such a thing as a "grave MORAL sinner?"
sure there is, MB*
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:31pm.
they are called libs :)
Again...
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:43pm.
If you don't agree with the tenets and teachings of the Catholic Church, you are free to not associate with them in any way.
Why can't people figure that out?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
She works for the Church
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:22pm.
"None of those facts are present in Emily's case."
She worked for the Church. Case Closed. For, as you failed to state, the Supreme Court decided that ANY employee of the Church, no matter their position, can be fired for failing to abide by Church doctrine. It wasn't limited to just those who teach religious material.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
That maybe the best
Submitted by Edhenry on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 1:29pm.
That maybe the best distinction in this whole case.
She worked for the Church.
Yep, she worked for the RCC
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:22pm.
And as was related on the 6PM news last night (but missing in any of Curry's "reporting"-I use the term loosely) is the fact that her employment contract contained a stipulation that employees abide by Church teaching.
OOPS!
Message to the Catholic church
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:44pm.
I will do as I please regardless of church doctrine and when you discipline me I'll sue you for momey, money, money.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
How DARE the RCC cause her
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:34pm.
How DARE the RCC cause her emotional trauma!!
They violated her civil and human rights!
Olbermann's ex live-in beard discussing fertilization???
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:33pm.
LOL! The only reason Tur was weathergirl at the NBC's NYC affiliate was because of Olby.
So they dump him, and now she's being elevated? Maybe they're b-slapping Olby, that's the only reason I can think of because Tur makes Chelsea Clinton seem exciting.
It's starting here...
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:38pm.
Never forget, liberals are big believers in patience and incrementalism.
How long before Catholic doctrine is considered discriminatory?
It's already called "anti-women." How far will they try to push it?
excellent point, MB
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:47pm.
The slower the demise of civility and society in general, the more likely we are to accept it. It's like a small trickle down a rock; you don't notice the damage until the rock is nearly worn away.
I think the diocese is within
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:14pm.
I think the diocese is within its rights to fire the woman, but I wonder where they would draw the line in fireable offenses?
Anything involving abortion
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:21pm.
Anything involving abortion will likely result in immediate termination.
Any grave sin that may become
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:28pm.
Any grave sin that may become public, will lead to termination due to the sin of scandal, bad example. This is what some teachers and leaders in the Roman Catholic Church do not understand or maybe do not know.
When you commit a grave sin and you make it public, or it becomes public, and you are in a position of leadership, you add one more sin to your grave sin, the sin of scandal. The sin of giving bad example to those who look up to you.
T
Think outside of abortion.
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:39pm.
Think outside of abortion. What would it take to get fired?
think outside of abortion?
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:45pm.
think outside of abortion? why?
hmmmm....cheating on your spouse and making it public.
Having a homosexual relationship.
abusing your children or someone else.
Breaking your signed contract.
The Roman Catholic Church is taking very seriously, and I am glad, the welfare of children. I am doing a one week summer camp with my parish late this June. I have to go through all types of training on how I can and cannot touch a child. We can't use the same showers they will use. We cannot be in the pool when they are also in the pool unless is to save a child's life. We can't sleep in the same cabins and camping tents as they will. Etc, etc, etc.
There are countless other reasons, just like many jobs, why the Church will fire you. Being constantly late to your job, poor classroom performance, etc, etc.
I am unsure what you are getting at.
Anything outside the bounds
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:56pm.
Anything outside the bounds of Catholic teaching and doctrine.
That's the line.
What if someone lies. Does it
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:02pm.
What if someone lies. Does it matter how big the lie is?
~Any employer would fire you for lying to them
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:08pm.
.
Depends on what the lie was
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:14pm.
Depends on what the lie was about, I'd think. I guess I just wonder how diligently the diocese has been enforcing their standards, or if it saw this instance as a high profile way to reinforce the church's position on procreation.
I can't see them firing someone who, say, ate someone else's sandwich out of the teacher's lounge refrigerator, or lying about being available to help out at an extracurricular activity.
~Oh, totally
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:32pm.
I'm sure they were looking for ANY excuse to get some more bad press from Dem hacks pretending to be journalists.
yes Balboa*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:52pm.
The RCC, like other Christians, tend to "turn the other cheek", but the Church has had about enough. Dont you agree?
Differences of opinion are one thing, differences in beliefs are another, but to publicly and consistently defile the tenets of the Church by the media is WAR. The Church will not surrender 2000 years of tradition and beliefs for discontented activist Catholics.
Some may think the timing is relevant but the responses by the Church are not the first in the volley. The Church is reacting to years of attacks from atheist groups, activists in and out of the Church and the Obama administration. At what point do you suggest the Church begin defending themselves?
The Catholics in Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt and the Congo are not armed and the type of people to militantly defend themselves against the Muslim jihad against Catholics. See how well that is working out for Catholics in Muslim countries.
If the defense is "moral
Submitted by Edhenry on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 5:07pm.
If the defense is "moral relativity" (all liberal orthodoxy comes from MR), then go down to the public school where such doctrine would be cause for immediate hiring, union tenure and a lifetime/no cut/pension rich contract.
Of couse it matters.
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:13pm.
It's a matter of degree. One wouldn't get fired for lying about why he was late to work yesterday, if that's what you're getting at. Someone lying constantly about job matters would be fired anyway, regardless of religion.
It's a matter of publicly and consistently living in a manner that is outside the teachings and doctrines of the Church, not the simple fact of getting caught in a "sin."
~Exactly
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:24pm.
Either the way you live your life reflects what you claim to believe, or it doesn't.
This lady is trying to have her cake and eat it, too. Any employee who doesn't abide by the terms of the employment contract is going to get kicked to the curb, regardless of who they work for.
Way, WAY off topic...
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 5:29pm.
But I envy you so much. My 4 kids are all grown up and I find that I really miss them being little sprouts, a lot! You are so blessed, I delivered my two youngest at home also, was a God given blessing. OK, back on track, uh, what were we talking about? LOL! God Bless you, your kids are gonna be awesome, I know mine are...
~#5 due tomorrow!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 9:20pm.
Lay in a stock of cigars and brace yourself for pics. :-p
The pics will be up
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 9:34pm.
after Bru slaps some trolls around, cooks her family a gourmet meal, feeds the chickens, gathers the eggs, and gives birth. Yep, our Bru does it ALL.
Ladies*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 9:39pm.
We have radar up and running at expat ...we are tracking the stork
That's a solid answer.
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 7:21pm.
That's a solid answer. Although it raises the question of whether or not the teacher was consistent outside of this one instance.
But I like your answer.
Balboa, Oh please!!!!I have
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 5:52pm.
Balboa,
Oh please!!!!
I have worked in places, secular, non-religious, where people were fired for lying about going to the bathroom and they really took a smoking break.
I have worked in places were people were fired for behaving, outside of work, in a manner that the secular company deemed immoral!!!!
MANY secular companies have moral clauses which if you violate, you are FIRED. And the morals in the clause are dictated by the company.
I will give you an example, I signed a contract with my university which has a moral clause. The clause clearly says that if I behave outsdie the university, during non-work hours in a manner that the university deems immoral, the university reserves the righ to terminate my employment!!
And guess who gets to define what is immoral? the university!! not me.
This is a story is "big news" simply because it is a chance for the radical wackos to attack the Roman Catholic Church.
This sounds like the typical case of an individual who is unwilling to take responsability for her actions.
Kind of sad that this woman
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:24pm.
Kind of sad that this woman is using a media campaign to attempt to force to change Her teachings. Thank goodness that the Church won’t budge.
1) Her contract stipulates that she had to abide by Church teachings. (this alone should lead the judge to toss this law suit).
2) No priest I have ever known would use the words she claimed this priest used. I can see the priest saying, “IV is a grave mortal sin”, but no priest would say what she claims the priest said.
3) Amazing how this is all about the poor emotions about the woman. Please! I can understand not being able to get pregnant. It took my wife and I 4 years to get pregnant with our third. So, I understand the emotional distress, but the ends never justify the means.
4) As with all of these types of stories, there is more to this story. Just like the story that a priest denied a poor grieving woman Communion during her mother’s burial Mass. Then it came out that the woman is a pro-homosexual militant activist. The media never reported the latter.
5) Did she not know the Church’s position on Invitro? If she didn’t, she had no business teaching at a Catholic school. Maybe this will teach Catholic schools to stop watering down Catholic Dogma in the classroom!!!
Says it all
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:15pm.
One Woman's Battle Against.........the Restrictions of the Catholic Church
That's it, in a nutshell.
I call bullsh!t on these
Submitted by TE on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:53pm.
I call bullsh!t on these crude lies from Emily Herx:
"The unusual part about this is from day one from my interview, my employer asked me when I was going to start a family and how many kids I was going to have. And after I got pregnant with my first son, she asked me when I was going to have another child. So she made it a very personal issue from the get-go."
Her employer (i.e., the Catholic church) asked her "how many kids [Herx] was going to have" and "when [Herx] was going to have another child"?
Those lies are as bogus as the quotes that Emily Herx (and/or her lawyer) fabricated as coming from the mouth of a priest. Predictably, NBC and its leftist/feminist useful idiots just ate-up those fabricated allegations without any challenge.
Exactly TE*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 5:02pm.
FMLA sound familiar? Getting pregnant is no longer an issue for employers. Done been decided for them.
Not only that, cajun, I
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:28pm.
Not only that, cajun, I believe it's illegal for an employer to question a woman about that.
Motherbelt, Yeap. I have
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 7:00pm.
Motherbelt,
Yeap. I have done a lot of hiring in my time and it is 100% illegal to ask a woman if she is pregnant, if she plans to have kids, how many kids she has, etc. Unless the woman volunteers the information, opening up the ability for me to ask these type of questions without any type of legal problem, I can't ask any type of family related question and a whole bunch of other questions.
As with all these types of stories, there is a lot more to this. The lawyer for this case knows that the RCC doesn't try their cases in the media, thus he is using the media to intimidate the Church. However, the Church has God on Her side and the Church is not easily intimidate it.
exactly LL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:38pm.
I did a lot of hiring in my working days and there is a whole list of questions an employer cannot ask. Add FMLA, NLRB rules and regs, and this woman is a liar.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 12:50am.
Most churches--and small businesses--wouldn't come under the purview of FMLA because of the minimum number of employees (50) requirement.
In this case, however, presumably that threshold was reached, and therefore the Act would apply.
Jer
The point is not the FMLA
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 1:21am.
The point is that employers are not allowed to use the possibility of having a family to color their hiring decisions. Especially when interviewing women.
Which leads us to the question of inequality of pay. It isn't there. More women now hold degrees, more women are pursuing degrees. To a large degree, women quit the workforce to have/rear families, thus missing key promotions, training, experience, seniority, etc...
Ahh, but let's absolve this woman of all responsibility of researching the policy of the employer regarding such matters.
True, RESTLESS
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/28/2012 - 2:01am.
However...
Does it Matter Where the Job Applicant Lives?
In the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT)[13] and Eighth Circuit (ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, MO, AR)[14], courts have found that an employer violates Title VII when they ask questions about childbearing plans, pregnancy, child care, and/or whether their husband approves of the job and its requirements. Courts in these circuits have found that those types of interview questions are discriminatory and directly affect the hiring decision in violation of Title VII.
However, courts are not as friendly in the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WS). There, a woman applied for a paramedic position and was asked during the interview, she was asked about the number of children she would have, her child care arrangements, and how her husband would feel about the job. The interviewer admitted that he did not ask male applicants the same questions. However, her claim failed because the court found that the evidence did not support the finding that her sex was a determining factor in the decision to hire a man. She failed to show substantial evidence that the interviewer relied on the gender stereotyping questions when making its decision not to hire her.[15]
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, a woman lost her case, even though the employer asked questioned about her marital status, her ability to travel and work with men, her child care arrangements. He did not ask male applicants the same questions. Because she failed to show that the decision not to hire her was tainted by bias, her case did not go forward.[16]
http://www.wageproject.org/files/tart_mart_Interview_Questions_legal.php
*********
In some jurisdictions simply asking the questions is sufficiently violative of Title VII, the discrimanatory intent being presumed.by virtue of the questions themselves. In other jurisdictions, the complainant must show a direct nexus between the specific questions posed to the applicant and the decision not to hire. [caveat: I'm drawing some inferences here. I haven't read the actual cases.]
Jer
Jer, Also.... Does Title VII
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 04/29/2012 - 11:00pm.
Jer,
Also....
Does Title VII apply to religious institutions who hire secular individuals?
Remember, a place of worship is allowed to discriminate when it comes to hiring someone who will lead their flock!
The RCC, for example, can discriminate when hiring a priest to be the leader, the pastor of a Catholic Church. Same with other religion.
AND of course, if Title VII applied in this case, the lady has to prove that it was used to get her fired.
Again, there is a lot more to this story that the main stream will never report, I am 99% sure of it.
I have to ask, how did the parish the Catholic school is attached to find out she was going to invitro fertilization?
This woman signed a contract which had a moral clause. These moral clauses are usually very detailed and it has been said that the clause says that in order to keep employment she had to keep all of the moral believes of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not unheard of as we know that the Supreme Court, 9-0, ruled in favor of a protestant church who had fired a teacher because she violated the moral clause there.
Sadly, the media is once again making this all emotional, "oh, poor woman, all she is trying to do is to have a child! How can the Church punish her for this!" the Church is NOT punishing her for attempting to have a child, or even for using methods, outside of intercourse, to have a child (the Church does allow certain methods of artificial infertilization as long as these do not kill another human being, embroys are human beings). The Church fired her, not a punishment, because she failed to follow her contract. She used invitro fertilization which the Church knows it deals with the killing of quite a few embroys after finally, if it ever happens, an embroy finally makes the woman pregnant. The Church knows this is playing with real lifes and killing human beings. The ends never justify the means.
This would be none of the Church's business if she hadn't signed a contract with a moral clause she agreed to.
Now, unfortunately, she is suing because she can't take responsability for her actions.
Liberallies...in brief:
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 12:22am.
I think it depends on the position for which the applicant is being hired. Custodians and cooks are distinguished from pastors, priests, teachers and scout leaders--as you have either explicitly or implicitly recognized in your post.
In this case, the action of the RCC appears a bit harsh, but I believe Herx is on very shaky legal ground according to the published facts.
Jer
Jer, Well, if I am not
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 04/30/2012 - 1:51pm.
Jer,
Well, if I am not mistaken, I believe that the lawyer for this lady said that he wanted to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court to have the SC more clearly define who can a church discriminate against and to whom Title VII applies to.
As for being harsh. I have to disagree. She signed a moral clause which she clearly violated.
Knowing the RCC as well as I do, I have ZERO doubt that she was given a chance to stop invitro. I have zero doubt that she was explained in detail the teachings of the Church. She was also explained that the Church allows other methods of artificial fertilization as long as these do not involve the killing of another human being.
I signed a contract for the university I work with. It has a moral clause, as defined by the university, which I agreed upon when I signed and dated the contract. If I am found guilty of violating this moral clause, the university will fire me. countless of companies have moral clauses in their employment contracts and even at-will employment have these. Why is it that no one cares when companies, universities, etc. have these, but all of a sudden it is harsh and wrong for the Church to have these. Pure and utter hypocrisy from the secular world and those who enjoy attacking the Church. (not saying you are any of the latter Jer LOL)
I have seen people fired at my university for committing much less grievous offenses which violate the universities moral clause AND the offense was committed outiside of work hours.
It baffles me, it always has, why people join or stay with institution with whom they do not agree. If you do not agree with Roman Catholic Church's teachings, no one is forcing you to stay. Why is it that people always want to change the Church, but they don't want to change for the Church, for God. It always baffles me.
Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 12:58pm.
True RESTLESS.
Should have stopped there. :)
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/04/2012 - 7:52pm.
That could be true, too.
Jer
Keep digging, NBC.
Submitted by HockeyKid on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:03pm.
All your attempts at distracting our attention from the OBYSMAL job your boy's done ain't gonna amount to a hill of beans.
Come November, Obysmal's OUT! I'm starting to smell landslide...
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Odd question
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Fri, 04/27/2012 - 11:32pm.
Why didn't they just adopt, rather than risk her health, career, pension etc?
Don't they have orphans in Indiana?