Assuming that is true - that destruction is the most common outcome - it would seem that if the church's true objection is to destruction, then a case not involving destruction of an embryo should not be a concern to them. Assuming she could prove to them that no embryo was destroyed in her case, they shouldn't have fired her. Instead, we're getting quotes from the Diocese that IV is an "absolute evil." It's possible that destruction being a common outcome is one objection, but the entire procedure is considered sinful for the other reasons I gave.Those are outdated references, their stance has changed over the years, or I could just say that it depends on your parish as some follow older rules than others...You are right on that, though it's more frequent that they are destroyed than donated
You make an interesting point about variance from parish to parish, but the issue here is the doctrine from the Vatican. That is presumably what the Diocese has grounded its objection on.