This is probably going to be a pointless post for most readers of this blog. But orthodox Catholics and others who follow Natural Family Planning, pay attention. If this isn't you, and you think NFPers are bonkers, please withhold your disapproval.
Right Said Red has written what she calls "A Crunchy Catholic's Dissent on Ecological Breastfeeding." What is "ecological breastfeeding"? It's a natural way of breastfeeding your baby to help manage fertility; you can read about it here. RSR thinks that the rules laid out by the Couple to Couple League are not realistic. She writes:
No poor mother, especially a young mom having her first baby, should go into motherhood thinking that she has some sort of moral obligation to uphold the 7 commandments of ecological breastfeeding. I think this is the reason that CCL ditched advocating EBF and started advocating the more obvious elements of breastfeeding—namely, breastfeeding that is exclusive (for the first 6 months) and continued (until child-led weaning). And for that I give them 2 thumbs up!
Without taking sides in this dispute (though my wife probably would have a lot to say), I'm especially interested in RSR's remarks about young Catholic moms going into motherhood believing that she's morally obliged to follow these particular rules as part of her moral obligation to obey Church teaching. It reminded me of how, early in my marriage, as my wife and I adjusted to NFP, Julie joined an NFP listserv, and mentioned that we were struggling with it. She never said, "And so we're thinking about ceasing to follow NFP," or anything like that. She just said that nothing in the literature prepared us for how difficult it could be to follow.
The reaction was telling. She was completely ignored. It was weird, actually. Any idea that NFP is anything other than the perfect, most easily implemented way of life seemed forbidden in that online circle. It was as if you couldn't admit to having problems with it, even within the context of fidelity to NFP. For an online support group, that was discouraging. She dropped off the list after that.
Mind you, that was nine years ago, so maybe things have changed. But we really did encounter a kind of political correctness within observant Catholic circles (that is, among people who were committed to NFP) about this stuff. I just throw it out there for discussion. I don't have anything else to add here, but I would very much like to read what readers who do practice NFP, or who once did but no longer do, have to say on the point.
UPDATE: Red Cardigan -- what is it with the reds? -- goes into great depth outlining the sides in the Great NFP Civil War. You know, the one between Catholics who don't believe that NFP ought to be used except in the most drastic situation (they don't believe in controlling fertility), and those who believe NFP loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. People, know your traditionalist Christian subcultures!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Oops- sorry for the multiple posts-- wasn't meaning to look like a bully! I was having trouble with firefox's noscript software. Could you possibly remove the duplicates, Rod, if it's not too much trouble? I apologize.
I want to thank Ben for his compliment. I hope we can continue to help others through NFP International.
Someone suggested that in our previous books on NFP Sheila and I offered as the reason to not use unnatural forms of birth control only that the Church says so. My re-reading of those texts doesn't support such a statement, but the point I want to make is that obedience to the teaching of the Church is the highest and best reason not to use unnatural methods of birth control, no matter how many other reasons we did, in fact, offer for consideration. For the Catholic believer, such a formal teaching of the Church is the teaching of Christ. Like all of Christ's commands to love one another, even as He has loved us, such a teaching about the demands of marital love is a love-command that calls for obedience. Obedience enables us to act as the adult Christ did, obedient unto death, even death on the cross. There is something not right in eschewing obedience in the life of Christian discipleship as a reason for following the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
To be sure, we now have theologies such as the papal theology of the body and others that can help us to understand the basis for the teaching, but theologies only lend support. They are "faith seeking understanding," the long time definition of theology. However, theologies do not substitute for the magisterium. Valuable as they are, they do not offer the certainty we get from the actual teaching of the Church. We live at a great time when we have unprecedented clarity of teaching and unprecedented help via theology. Let us make good use of both of them.
John F. Kippley
"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius)
www.NFPandmore.org
Michelle M: By the same token, it was perfectly fine for us to make the prayerfully considered decision to allow ourselves to "throw caution to the wind" after a period of time on NFP, enjoy the love we have for each other, and accept and love the child that may result. We're married, for pete's sake. There is nothing wrong or sinful about that.
I hear you. For that matter, people can decide to use no birth control OR NFP, and then find that they wind up with only 2 or 3 children. People have this idea that if they don't rigidly control their fertility, they're going to *always* end up like "rabid rabbits." It doesn't always work that way. I went from fertility to natural menopause over the course of 15 years without any b.c. OR fertility awareness, and never got pregnant again after my last pregnancy. That's just how she rolls sometimes.
Kirk: (if you're still reading)
Re: what you term as distinguishing between commission and omission -- perhaps it's a fine distinction, but it is nonetheless a distinction. I like the guy's reply who pointed out that by your reckoning, he was practicing NFP with practically every female he met. Me too.
However, I should hasten to remind you that there's a reason that we don't practice NFP anymore, and it was (I thought) stated in my post, i.e., that it seems to me to be too close to contraception, also. I was simply trying to explain it from a pro-NFP position for you.
So, I almost -- but not quite fully -- agree with you. I'm not going to judge others (boy did I used to though when I was practicing NFP) but I would generally observe that there is a bias against life in this culture. Of course that's not my original thought, but the point of an obscure figure named John Paul II.
Speaking only for myself, I treasure my children so much that I would give anything just to have another. They are precious beyond measure. (Even my 13 year old who's currently giving me more grief than I ever thought survivable.) That being my attitude, why would I ever want to prevent receiving such a gift?
The simple truth is that I don't want to. I look at young parents with new babies and think to myself, "Wow. I hope he (or she) realizes how blessed he really is."
Children are not only wonderful blessings for their parents (most of the time, anyway), grandparents and other relatives, but also for all of society. The culture of a fertile/fecund community is quite different from that of a sterile community. The former is focused on children--playgrounds, parks, schools, bikeways, stores for kids clothing, toys, food, minivans, etc. The latter is focused on fancy restaurants, and material goods of limited practicality. The church attendance and crime rates are different. I believe that children are the answer to many of our culture's problems.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.