Church Fires Mother Who Wants Another Child

Emily Herx

A Catholic school teacher and a mother of one, Mrs. Emily Herx, taught literature and language for seven years at St. Francis de Paul in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In June she was fired because she attempted to expand her family by using in vitro fertilization  -- mixing egg and sperm cells in a lab dish and transferring the resulting embryo into the womb.


The Catholic Church maintains that IVF is a sin because, as the Diocese said, these procedures "frequently involve the deliberate destruction and freezing of embryos." (Notice the word use of the word "frequently." which suggests that they have no idea whether that occurred in this case, but it is a sin because that may happen. People "frequently" get killed  riding motorcycles. I haven't checked recently, but I suppose it's possible the Church has declared riding a motorcycle a mortal sin.)


Emily, a thirty-two year old mother, is now suing the Diocese of Fort Wayne - South Bend and the schoool of St. Vincent de Paul for discrimination. 


According to Emily, the bishop told her that IVF "is an intrinsic evil, which means no circumstances can justify it." Her own parish priest told her that she was "a grave,immoral sinner" for using IVF. (It appears these guys don't put much stock in the theory that only God can judge the heart of a sinner.)


Of course, the Diocese is claiming they  have the right to fire Emily because as a religious institution, the school has the right "to make religious based decisions consistent with its religious standards on an impartial basis."


The school's claim of "impartiality" is suspect. Emily claims she was treated differently from other employees. The school's principal, Sandra Guffey, is divorced -- not consistent with the Church's "religious  standards."
Several of the male teachers have had vasectomies. And, since statistics indicate that over 95% of fertile Catholics use contraceptives, it is highly likely that male and female teachers at St. Francis de Paul school are using the pill or condoms.


Once again, just as in the insurance-contraception controversy,  the Church is trying to frame this case as one of  religious freedom. and seeking a "ministerial exemption" from what would be an illegal firing in any other situation. It is a revelation to Emily and her husband, Brian, that she is a "minister" of the church. They must have ordained her when she wasn't paying attention.


Of course, the religious "exemption' that the Catholic Church continues to invoke has the potential to become absurd. Can a religion which claims surgery is a sin fire an employee who has a life-saving  appendectomy?


One has to wonder why these church men insist on choosing to create conflicts like this. The Catholic Church comes across looking like the school-yard bully desperate to find someone to intimidate. Emily and Brian Herx, on the other hand, have to deal with providing for their family with one less source income. 

Qualifications for Romney's Running Mate

Romney and Beth Meyer

Now that Willard Mitt Romney, a successful venture/vulture capitalist with Bain Capital and a Mormon Bishop, has all but secured the nomination for President from a grudging Republican Party, it is time for a potential president to make his first presidential-level decision -- choosing a running mate. 


Some wags suggest that it is not a matter of Mitt choosing someone, but a matter of finding someone willing to be second banana on his faltering ship. I, however, am confident there is another "Sarah Palin'" out there who would be happy to capitalize and monetize the opportunity.


Conventiional wisdom suggests that Mitt must choose someone who can help him win the 2012 Presidential race. This means he needs to choose someone who will appeal to voters who don't like Mitt  Romney.  In this case,  that would require a woman,  preferably a Tea Party gal, or a Hispanic.  (Some would suggest Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, but no serious Republican is going to repeat John McCain's disastrous mistake.) Nikki Haley, freshman governor of South Carolina  or New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez might fit the need, but a more appealing choice might be the young Cuban, Senator Marco Rubio  who may attract some Hispanic votes.


 The third pillar of conventional wisdom suggests the candidate needs to choose a candidate who can help him win a so-called "swing" state.( Some would suggest, once again  freshman senator, Marco Rubio, from Florida, Rob Portman, a freshman senator from Ohio, or Governor Chris Christie from New Jersey.)  Given the above, Rubio appears to be well suited, even though he said he wants to stay in the Senate. Rubio has all three things going for him, Hispanic, from a swing state, and supported by the Tea Party.  (But, quite frankly, does Mitt have to worry about the Tea Party? Who else will they vote for?)


But it is up to Mitt as the candidate to make his first serious decision. Just as when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts, he has chosen Beth Meyer to help him find a winning running mate.


Not an easy job. She has to find someone with the following qualifications:


1. must be able to operate an Etch-a-Sketch while wearing  flip-flops
2. must be able to explain to PETA that driving with your dog tied to the roof is a good thing.
3. must have enough money to throw down a $10K bet on the spur of the moment.
4. must get a rush from firing workers.
5. must own a mansion on both coasts.
6. must have friends who are NASCAR owners.
7. must agree the solution to the immigration problem is "self-deportation."
8. must have a huge income derived from capital gains rather real work.
9. must have zero personality--any sign of personality will show up Mitt's lack thereof.
10. must never talk of Romney's Mormon religion --- that's taboo -- not even Mitt is permitted to talk about that.
11. must try to keep your secret Swiss bank account secret.
12. must own several assault rifles to keep the NRA fringe happy.
13. must have destroyed all your computer records if you were in public service.
14. must appreciate trees of the "right height" -- preferably those in Michigan.
15. must grovel at the feet of the Tea Party.
16. must swear to do all in your power to eliminate public unions for police, teachers,etc.
17. must be opposed to stay-at-home mothers receiving benefits -- staying at home to raise a family is the privilege of the wealthy.
18. must not admit that you inherited your wealth, but pretend you started with nothing.
19. must not find fault with Rush Limbaugh for calling  a Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke, "a slut."
20. must agree that English is the official language of the realm, .can't be speaking Spanish.


If Beth can find someone who meets these criteria, it will probably be someone with Mitt's genes -- one of his children. And why not have one of his children (provided they meet the age requirement)  as his running mate? I think Mitt would like that; it has the aura of royalty about it. Perfect.

Radical Feminists -- US Catholic Nuns?

Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Recently the Vatican reprimanded the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, a group that represents 80% of US Catholic nuns, for emphasizing social justice issues instead of abortion and same-sex marriage. Also the nuns were accused of having doctrinal issues.


The Vatican, according to the New York Times, accused the group of challenging "church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted 'radical feminists themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.'" (NYT, 5/19/2012) Perhaps the accusation says more about the men in the Vatican than it says about Catholic religious women.


Apparently the Vatican was responding to a recently completed "investigation" (not to be confused with an inquisition?) of the US nuns by Bishop Leonard Blair (Toledo, OH), and although the Vatican does not cite specific examples of the "serious doctrinal problems," it does make reference to the group's "silence" on Catholic doctrine such as the right to life. If one finds it strange that Bishop Blair thinks silence is culpable, please remember that he encouraged Catholics not to contribute to the Komen Breast Cancer Fund because the Fund might at some time in the future fund abortions. (Recent history has revealed how ridiculous were his fears.)


But of course, the real story is about a patriarchal, military-style hierarchy worried about its power and its efforts to influence politics in the USA.


Sister Simone Campbell,  the executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters, offered the following: "I would imagine that it was our health care letter that made them (the Vatican) mad. We haven't violated any teaching, we have just been raising questions and interpreting politics."  As the NYT reported: "During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plans, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it -- support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care."


The Vatican's message is loud and  clear: it is quite acceptable for the bishops to become involved in US politics, but nuns dare not express their political opinions.


Perhaps the Vatican is still stewing over the situation in 1984 in which nuns, along with several priests and theologians, took out a full page ad in The New York Times stating that "Catholics have differing opinions opinions on women's reproductive issues..." The Vatican demanded retractions, but most of the nuns involved refused. (cf. Wikipedia, "Vatican 24")


Suffice it to say: a dictatorship cannot abide freedom of expression.

The Pope Fiddles While Rome Burns

Nero Fiddles While Rome Burns

Excuse me for laughing, but I just read several newspaper headlines suggesting that the Vatican,  in the persons of Bishop Sartain (Seattle), Bishop Blair (Toledo), Bishop Paprocki (Springfield, IL),  are going to "reform" the Catholic Women Religious of the United States! Give me a break! Of all the problems the Vatican has, they are concerned about the religious women who are out in the world actually practicing their Christianity!


If anything needs "reforming" it is the Vatican and its autocratic bishops. Benedict XVI might want to reform the Vatican Bank and allow the light of transparency to penetrate the secrets that lie buried in its vaults. The Vatican might want to reform itself in terms of its lack of leadership on the misconduct of priests and bishops who were involved in pedophilia or who covered it up. (Many of us still question why Cardinal Law was promoted to Rome after his disastrous lack of leadership in Boston.) The Vatican may want to consider its ambivalent position on clerical involvement in local politics. In South America, the Vatican told priests associated with  "Liberation Theology" to disengage from political activity, but on the other hand, when US Catholic Bishops launched a political attack on President Obama, the Vatican was noticeably silent.


The current leadership of the institutional Church is driving baptized Catholics and their money out of the front door all across the USA and other parts of the world. The Church has an increasingly, woeful lack of male, celibate priests. Catholic dioceses in the the US and Europe are closing churches at an alarming rate. With all these problems, one would think that the Vatican would "examine its conscience" and aggressively attack these problems. Not going to happen; they are worried about nuns in the US who are discussing the ordination of women.

I guess the Pope buys into the leadership philosophy that if you have a problem, the best thing to do is to ignore it and  create another problem of your own choosing and then pretend to be solving it.

Supreme Court Goes Rogue

Justice Roberts: "Take it all off!"

Just as the the Conclave of Roman Catholic Cardinals is apt to make mistakes in choosing a Pope, the United States Supreme Court has been known to make some seriously flawed decisions. One of the more egregious was the Dred Scott case which denied freed slaves their citizenship and was overturned in 1868 by the 14th Amendment. Then there was the Plessy vs. Ferguson case which maintained that segregated passenger cars did not violate the 14th Amendment, and "separate but equal" lasted until the 1950's (Brown vs. Board of Education). A few dreadful decisions in over 200 years.


And then in recent history, in just a few short years,  we have had three atrocious rulings by a conservative, Republican biased Supreme Court. In 2000, by a five-to-four decision, the Republican majority invalidated a Florida law mandating a recount, and in effect giving George W. Bush the Presidency of the United States, and we all know how that turned out. This case removed any doubt that these five judges were making decisions based on politics because earlier in their careers or when being questioned by the Senate, they claimed to be "States Rights" judges. Apparently, states rights were only a factor in racial situations.


And then in 2010, the "frightful five" in the Citizens United case decided that corporations and labor unions had the same rights as an individual person; and, in the name of freedom of speech, they could contribute unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money to influence political elections. This decision places our electoral process on the auction block.


After those two obvious politically- motivated decisions, one would think this court had done enough damage for a century. But no, the "Frightful Five" were not finished. Their next target was one of our most cherished rights, the right preventing "unreasonable searches and seizures" which we, the citizens,  were confident was protected by the Fourth Amendment. Guess again. The five conservative Republican appointed judges had other ideas, even though they had previously railed against "activist" judges. On April 3, 2012, to the dismay of most, the five Republican appointed judges decided to give police the authority to use strip-searches, even for minor offenses such as jay-walking or violating a leash law.


The result: my granddaughter or grandson is stopped by the police because she/he does not have a bell ringer on her/his bicycle (one of the cases considered) and is now subject to a strip-search, including probing her/his body cavities. A Catholic nun at an ant-war demonstration could be arrested and subjected to a strip-search. ( An actual case and one which makes one wonder whether this technique is going to be used to prevent peaceful protest.)


 But of course, we all know we can trust the police to do the right and reasonable thing.


The " Frightful Five" disregarded Justice Stephen Breyer's warning that such searches  were "a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy." So much for our liberties and the Fourth Amendment!


Thus, within a matter of ten years, five justices have managed to make a mockery of the the Supreme Court as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.


And now, these same political justices are considering the Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2011. What are the chances that Justice Roberts and his buddies in the black robes will reach a judicial decision not based on politics?