home
RSS
April 27th, 2012
02:52 PM ET

Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

By Leigh Remizowski, CNN

(CNN) - A teacher at a Catholic school in Indiana is suing the diocese where she worked after being fired because the in vitro fertilization treatments she received were considered against church teachings.

Emily Herx, a former English teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, filed a federal lawsuit against the school and the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend.

She says in the suit filed Friday that she was discriminated against in 2011 after the school's pastor found out that she had begun treatments with a fertility doctor, according to the complaint.

Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and 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.

FULL STORY

Watch CNN Newsroom weekdays 9am to 3pm ET and weekends. For the latest from the CNN Newsroom click here.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • TV-CNN Newsroom

soundoff (131 Responses)
  1. Jo Gordon

    What would Jesus do? Obviously NOT what this church does! The church needs to get with the times if it wants to survive. And at the rate the Catholics are leaving, it won't be long!

    April 27, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
  2. William

    I personally think this is a difficult situation. Would any of us hire people to teach our children what is contrary to how we want them taught? If someone set an example we did not want set for our children would we hire them to care for them when we were not there? If someone sends their child to a public school and is taught by someone promoting a religion through their actions would we ask for their removal? If we send our child to a religious school to learn the teachings of that religion would we want them to have someone who was behaving contrary to those teachings.? I have to defend the right of people to organize and believe and to pass those teachings on because if I do not, I invite others to prevent me from being free as well. Unfortunately, and at times fortunately, we place the individual above the group and when we do this, we actually reduce ever individuals rights becasue there is no way to set everyone free. The catholic church has a right to demand those who represent them do so in a way that is conducive to their teachings just as a public school may set their expectation. Just becasue one does not fit our liking does not mean it is wrong. And yes, you can generalize this to obscene atrocities and make comparisons about priests who molest children but that is why I think they need to address their hiring practices.

    April 27, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • sam stone

      how was she teaching the kids something contra to what the employers wanted to be taught?

      April 28, 2012 at 9:22 am |
  3. danielwalldammit

    It's nice to see the principles of religious freedom empowering employers to harm the lives of their employees. Go church!

    April 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
  4. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    April 27, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • danielwalldammit

      For instance, I'll bet there was a time when you actually engaged people in conversation. But then you found prayer, didn't you.

      April 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
  5. Jill sucks up the azzhole

    She has the brobdingnagian mouth to do it with.

    April 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  6. Plain Ol' Dreamer

    fred wrote on Friday, April 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm stating, "We have a need for balance in our societies. Whether we have a Christian society or an atheist society both need each other. Governments and societies run to their own worst ends at times and need to be brought back into balance. Our current system is now broken as Republicans and Democrats have forgotten they serve the people and are under some self serving spell. Romney may just be the ticket because his priority is family and all the Mormon watchdogs will hold him accountable."

    I replied stating, Accountabilities in individualisms and of socialisms are but dogged increments that neither do well amidst the ever amassing fundaments of egoisms' parlored affluencies!

    Funny thing the Times are! Those 70's generationed' lots are now aged in diasperisms of their ownliness dogged insinuations of amalgumations' proper! I was once and now I am no more seems a bit like abandonment of one's once leveraged commonweatlth of peace above all wars! What ever happened to those peace-filled groupies? Too much money to be made outside of peace mills?

    Tidal are the pools of spirited fundaments' earnesties! To lay wasted by one's nugacities is true forlorning and unworthy of but passiveness "candoration"! Leave such best in the aloneness lest the fabrisciousness takes a hold and does make lustereness their bigotrous anat'omies' hindsightivenesses! Eat! Drink! Be Merry and Merrily Be!

    The manifestation of the "anti" has long since gone and we are living in its' prevailing amusements! WW1 and WW2 have come and gone with little more than a whimper from the religious clods still stammering about the "anti" next time! Most of the idiotic imbeciles of all sorts of socialisms many branches will never see the cunnings of the "anti"! Such cunningness has become the generationed lots of perplexed anal-isms ever to regurgitate upon their ownliness symmetricalities of generationalisms onward marching ever towards a new dawn of same ol' same ol' crapola! Eat! Drink! Dopes on the ropes!

    The "bread" parable deals with Christ's embodiment to be upon the innerness of plant life! In "Drink" is His bloodline of Christ's armies going thru all of personages who do embellish in the wines and such libations! Christ being as the "bread" is how He and His kindred kinds carry on in their works to sustain those who are of and do ever live inside the humanists' bodies!

    1Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

    Does not 3;9 in 1 Corinthians say our bodies are God's buildings? Who among us can not also say that any Life, be it animal or plants are of God's Buildings? It seems unwise to lament that our bodies are the only buildings of this world's Life Forms and Life Formations! The truly wise of us humanists may well agree with me that all Life is of God's Buildings!

    Being "touched" is as being in a spiritual condition that seemingly declares one to be writing/speaking in "tongues"! I do not speak in tongues but do write in tongue and cheek mindives whereupon only true visionaries may find solace in their daily fruitions' reconnoitring! Your piecemeal inuendoes are flagrant frivoloities of gestured aloofness and I am unconcerned with such pleasentries of witticisms!

    April 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Jill

      It is what the peanut precipitated. Verily pathetic browned to fungicide for the obtuse, and yet we desist. Such is the way of the wanton walnut when vexed or constipated. We know this because of the floculent in the summer. Probert, pass the coagulent and not the deciduous boat. Roust the whales.

      April 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Jill, your porcupopic response is most epicanulous. Kudos on your momulentary fupukes!

      April 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Plain Ol' Dreamer

      Jill,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.,,..

      Jack would be so proud of you Jill! Provided you don't slimey the Tom Tom Girlie mantled discreted vo'luptuousness! You do know that Tom Tom is a girlie guy don't you?

      April 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, POS, ...whoops, POD: not a guy at all.

      But do bustulate on your creditious imaginariumisms and mindives.

      April 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Plain Ol' Dreamer

      Tommie can you hear me?

      Why must you incessantly "drag" Tom into your livelihood's ambiances Namesake?

      April 27, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
  7. Reality

    This teacher might have a problem depending on how the courts view her employment:

    To wit:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/supreme-court-backs-church-in-landmark-religious-liberty-case/

    "The government must stay out of hiring and firing decisions by a religious organization, even if a minister sues for employment discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

    Religious freedom groups praised the decision, and especially the fact that it came from a unanimous court."

    April 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  8. Plain Ol' Dreamer

    The "bread" parable deals with Christ's embodiment to be upon the innerness of plant life! In "Drink" is His bloodline of Christ's armies going thru all of personages who do embellish in the wines and such libations! Christ being as the "bread" is how He and His kindred kinds carry on in their works to sustain those who are of and to live inside the humanists' bodies!

    1Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

    April 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Inigo

      I do not think all those words mean what you think they mean.

      April 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • Reality

      Reminds me of the following:

      . JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

      Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

      Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

      Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.

      Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

      So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?

      April 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Inigo: POD doesn't care what words mean; he just likes the sounds they make when he babbles to himself.

      April 27, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Plain Ol' Dreamer

      Inigo,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,.,,

      Does not 3;9 in 1 Corinthians say our bodies are God's buildings? Who among us can not also say that any Life, be it animal or plants are of God's Buildings? It seems unwise to lament that our bodies are the only buildings of this world's Life Forms and Life Formations! The truly wise of us humanists may well agree with me that all Life is of God's Buildings!

      April 27, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Plain Ol' Dreamer

      Reality,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.,.,.

      Being "touched" as being a spiritual condition that declares one to be writing/speaking in "tongues"! I do not speak in tongues but do write in tongue and cheek mindives whereupon only true visionaries may find solace in their daily fruitions' reconnoitring! Your piecemeal inuendoes are flagrant frivoloities of gestured aloofness and I am unconcerned with such pleasentries of witticisms!

      April 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
    • Plain Ol' Dreamer

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son,,,,,,,,,,,, ,.,,..

      You may say I am a babbler but how often do I circ-um-size your babbling inuendoes? Share with me Tommie some of your most cherished diddies will ya? Oh, I forgot! You only dribble sarcasms of witt and not true grit!

      April 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sorry, 'tard, but "diddies" isn't a word. Gee, who'd have guessed that?

      Grow a freckin' brain. I don't give a sh!t how you do it, but until you DO do it, I've no time or patience for your idiotic drivel.

      April 27, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
  9. Bootyfunk

    Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner"

    burn in hell you godless sinner! hehe. how dare you try to produce life! hehe.

    how are any women part of these nutty chrisitan cults?

    April 27, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • Kalessin

      Ever talked to any to find a real answer?

      April 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  10. lunchbreaker

    Religion needs to just get used to the fact that societal norms will eventually weed out certain traditions. At some point in the past some tribe was probably complaining that by banning human sacrafice leaders were infringing on thier religious rights. The values of society change overtime, religion has either had to adjust or go away.

    April 27, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Kalessin

      "At some point in the past some tribe was probably complaining that by banning human sacrafice leaders were infringing on thier religious rights."

      Lol..yeah, probably not the ones about to be sacrificed.

      April 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • Snow

      I guess the eternal god changes with time.. what kind of god is that

      April 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Kalessin

      Could be that the people change but God does not.
      You have to admit....the ppl of God went from avenging the death of one of there own by killing dozens of others, to going down the "tooth for a tooth" road and eventually getting to Jesus saying to Love your enemies.

      April 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " Could be that the people change but God does not."

      So 4000 yearsago when your god commanded that his followers go out and kill gay people, he still wants you to do this? Why aren't you?

      And when he commanded that young, unengaged virgins who were ra.ped be forced to marry their attackers, he still wants you folks to do this?

      April 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Kalessin

      "So 4000 yearsago when your god commanded that his followers go out and kill gay people, he still wants you to do this? Why aren't you?"

      ~You realize that this rarely ever happened. There was a council of elders that had final say on how laws would be upheld.
      On the why aren't I part...Christ said to love thy neighbor. Killing them hardly seems like a way to show compassion.

      "And when he commanded that young, unengaged virgins who were ra.ped be forced to marry their attackers, he still wants you folks to do this?"

      ~Better to send them away without a home, property or any semblance of a life? That's what would have happened to them in the culture of that day you know.

      April 27, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  11. Sean

    Why do muslims want to work in catholic schools and invite trouble?!?!

    April 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Huebert

      Did you read the article before you posted?

      April 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Nonimus

      What article?

      April 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
  12. Primewonk

    IVF = artificially aiding or assisting conception, thus it is intrinsically evil and wrong for women to do this.

    Viagra = artificially assisting conception, thus it is intrinsically good and right for men to use this.

    Am I missing something here? Seems to methat the difference is in who gets what.

    Yet, the Catholics still maintain that there is no war on women.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • Huebert

      This is Catholicism women aren't allowed to have any fun here. Are you a woman who enjoys posting on belief blog? You better stop it God's gonna see you having fun, and you know how angry that makes us...er...him.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Let's not forget:

      The Pill: very evil, mjust be used continuously, though easily reversible

      Vasectomy: kinda evil, not reversible, but just go to confession afterwards and you're good to go.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  13. Lewis Keseberg

    Eating flesh: Cool.

    Drinking blood: want another cup?

    Utilizing modern medical procedures: Fine, so long as they don't conflict with a particular interpretation of an archaic text.

    Apparently the message is that if you can have babies, then you better be crankin' 'em out, but if you can't, then god hates you and you should just accept it. God only gave us modern medicine for uses that a group of celibate old men deems appropriate.

    The vatican REALLY needs to fire their PR person.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  14. Leucadia Bob

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIu5aPIIzzM&w=640&h=360]

    April 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
  15. Colin

    Ten signs you are a Catholic.

    1. You believe that the pope has personal conversations with God (that nobody else ever hears) and is infallible when he elects to speak “from the chair” on matters of Church doctrine. You then wistfully ignore the fact that Church doctrine changes and that former popes therefore could not possibly have been “infallible”. Limbo, for example, was touted by pope after pope as a place where un-baptized babies who die go, until Pope Benedict XVI just eradicated it (or, more accurately, so watered it down as effectively eradicate it in a face saving way). Seems all those earlier “infallible” Popes were wrong – as they were on Adam and Eve v. evolution, heliocentricity v. geocentricity, immaculate conception, and a host of other issues that required an amendment of official Church doctrine. You also ignore the innumerable murders, rampant corruption and other crimes committed over the centuries by your “infallible”, god-conversing popes.

    2. You reject the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours. You are blissfully (or intentionally) blind to the fact, that had you been born in another part of the World, you would be defending the local god(s) and heralding the incorrectness of Catholic beliefs.

    3. You begrudgingly accept evolution (about a century after Darwin proved it and after accepting Genesis as literally true for about 2,000 years) and that Adam and Eve was totally made up, but then conveniently ignore that fact that your justification for Jesus dying on the cross (to save us from Original Sin) has therefore been eviscerated. Official Church literature still dictates a belief in this nonsense.

    4. You disdain native beliefs as “polytheist” and somehow “inferior” but cannot explain (i) why being polytheistic is any sillier than being monotheistic. Once you make the quantum leap into Wonderland by believing in sky-fairies, what difference does it make if you believe in one or many?; nor (ii) why Christians believe they are monotheistic, given that they believe in god, the devil, guardian angels, the holy spirit, Jesus, many demons in hell, the Virgin Mary, the angel Gabriel, thousands of saints, all of whom apparently make Earthly appearances periodically, and all of whom inhabit their various life-after-death lands (limbo, purgatory, heaven, hell) with magic-sacred powers of some kind.

    5. You bemoan the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don`t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees or the 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf (or the dozen or so other slaughters condoned by the bible). You also like to look to god to for guidance in raising your children, ignoring the fact that he drowned his own – according to your own Iron Age mythology.

    6. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that God impregnated Mary with himself, to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself to “forgive” an ”Original Sin” that we now all know never happened.

    7. You criticize gays as sinners, but have no problem when Lot got drunk and committed father-daughter in.cest (twice) or offered his daughters to a mob to be gang ra.ped, or when Abraham, time and again, offered his wife up for the “pleasures” of kings to save his own skin.

    8. You believe that your god will cause anyone who does not accept your Iron Age stories to suffer a penalty an infinite times worse than the death penalty (burning forever in excruciating torture) simply because of their healthy skepticism, yet maintain that god “loves them”.

    9. You will totally reject any scientific breakthrough that is inconsistent with your established doctrine, unless and until it is so generally accepted as to back you into a corner. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you of the deep inanity of your silly faith, some priest doing magic hand signals over grocery store bread and wine is enough to convince you it is thereby transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus, because of the priest’s magic powers (or “sacred powers” if you prefer the more euphemistic term).

    10. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to Lourdes, Fátima and other magic places and prayers in general. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. The remaining 99.99% failure was simply “god moving in mysterious ways”. The fact that, if you ask for something repeatedly, over and over, year after year, sooner or later that thing is bound to happen anyway, has not even occurred to you. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

    11. You accept the stories in the Bible without question, despite not having the slightest idea of who actually wrote them, how credible these people were or how long the stories were written after the alleged events they record occurred. For example, it is impossible for Moses to have written the first five books of the Old Testament, as Catholics believe. For one, they record his death and events after his death. In fact, the chance of the Bible being historically accurate in any but the broadest terms is vanishingly small.

    Heavens, I could not fit them into ten.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Kalessin

      "11. You accept the stories in the Bible without question, despite not having the slightest idea of who actually wrote them, how credible these people were or how long the stories were written after the alleged events they record occurred."

      ~Of course this little copy/pasting is completely ignoring that not all Catholics believe the Bible is 100% accurate. Unless of course the author of it is wanting to get into telling us who a True Scotsman...I mean Catholic is.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      Kalessin,

      Are you saying it is not reasonable to assume that Catholics follow the teachings of the Church? If they don't, I don't see anyone saying they aren't catholic, but it would then be reasonable to ask why they DO consider themselves as such.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • momoya

      It's simpler than that.. You can't ever talk about what christians believe because the "christian" label doesn't guarantee that person believes anything that another christian believes.. That's why it's intellectually dishonest when christians use the "not all christians think that" defense.. Not all christians do anything they all agree on.

      Put more simply.. A troll like this one simply notices that Colin referenced a general christian belief, so she claims "not specific enough..la dee da..da derp.". Had Colin been more specific, she would do the, "not general enough to apply to all christians..la de herpin derp da dee."

      April 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Kalessin

      @*facepalm*- "Are you saying it is not reasonable to assume that Catholics follow the teachings of the Church? If they don't, I don't see anyone saying they aren't catholic, but it would then be reasonable to ask why they DO consider themselves as such."

      ~I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if one does not follow the teachings of the Church to the letter, that they are not Catholic. This is a faith issue and since there is no 'you must fulfill (a), (b) and (c) to be a Catholic", I think it's silly to question how they identify themselves at the personal level.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Kalessin

      "That's why it's intellectually dishonest when christians use the "not all christians think that" defense.. Not all christians do anything they all agree on."

      ~I think the dishonesty lies with those that would try to define individuals on a generalization of a group affiliation. Trolls that want to do nothing more than to discredit or insult people on their individual beliefs won't understand this though.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • J.W

      I don't feel you can expect them to agree on every aspect. Most democrats are pro-choice, but the ones who are not I would not say are not true democrats.

      April 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Kalessin

      It's funny...if a person (a Christian usually) will say that Obama isn't a real Christian, Hitler wasn't a real Christian or that Romney isn't a real Christian..then they are slapped with a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
      But a non-Catholic making broad inaccurate statements on what would make someone Catholic is ok? I'm sorry but that doesn't make any rational bit of sense.

      April 27, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Kalessin

      @J.W- "Most democrats are pro-choice, but the ones who are not I would not say are not true democrats."

      Exactly...same in this case. Being Catholic ( or in a broader sense Christian) does not mean that there is some biased list of attributes that can be pinned on a person to define them. It's dishonest of ppl to imply such things...right?

      April 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  16. Colin

    Isn't it incredible. A being, powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies is offended by this woman on Earth's attemp to have children.

    I would have slightly more respect for these Catholics if they admitted it was them who had an issue with IVF, not their imaginary friend. That reeks of cowardice.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • fred

      Is more respect the same as less disrespect?

      April 27, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  17. Kalessin

    Sounds like the school had the right to fire her but they were too lazy to followup on there own rules or to make those rules clear to the teacher.
    They should have talked with her first and explained what they expect from the employees. Given how much time she worked for them, they should have given her a chance to stop the treatments and continue teaching or resign with a year's pay.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Snow

      How exactly does a woman having an IVF treatment effect the way she performs teacher duties? why should a person's personal life and choices matter at her work place?

      April 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Kalessin

      "How exactly does a woman having an IVF treatment effect the way she performs teacher duties?"

      ~I don't think it does. However, this isn't my school. This school is a private and not public organization and has the right to hire who they want under their religious guidelines.

      "why should a person's personal life and choices matter at her work place?"

      ~Don't think they should. But our personal beliefs are not the issue. The issue is if the private school has the legal right to fire her based on the reasons given. From what little I saw of the video, it seems like they do.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Snow

      you are either too accepting of rulebook at its face value or too weak to question authority on its misgivings.. simply following the rules would have left this country still in the hands of colonial powers and there would not have been a Gandhi or even jesus christ for that matter.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Kalessin

      @Snow- I am trying to be reasonable to both parties involved. This nation also holds compromise as a value.

      But they are challenging the system right now and I'm all for that. I just don't see the teacher winning out in the end. It wouldn't surprise me if it's settled outside of the court in a manner I spelled out. They'll pay her out for a certain amount of time and she'll find a new job. Hopefully one that will not hold it against her that she uses fertilty treatments.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  18. hannamomma

    The catholic chuch is condemming her for wanting to have a child but yet they hide child abusers in their priesthood. Hmm, anyone else see issues here?

    April 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Kalessin

      One issue yes...the people that were supposably hiding the priests are not the same people running this school. I could be mistaken but I highly doubt they are.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
  19. Snow

    Yep.. it is a grave immoral sin to try and have their own kids.. man in a dress hath spoken justice.. and of course they can show the verse against ivf in the bible.. eh? f'ing morons

    ps. how come they never speak out against viagra.. it causes "immoral" thoughts in a man who would otherwise not have them and give license to do things he would not have been able to do without (isn't that their favorite argument for everything)..

    April 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Primewonk

      DUH!

      IVF = done to women
      Viagra= used by men

      But there's no war on women.

      April 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
  20. Doc Vestibule

    Life begins at ovulation.
    Women should feel ashamed for menstruating.
    Every egg is sacred.

    April 27, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Jill

      Brilliant, Doc.

      April 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Jill's a suck up

      Witty perhaps. Brilliant? No.

      April 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Jill's a suck up is an azzhole

      Whose opinion is hardly monomomoterian.

      April 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Jill sux up the azzhole

      She has the brobdingnagian mouth to do it with..

      April 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
1 2
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.