Archive for the ‘NFP’ Category

Natural Family Planning with 4 organizations

Sunday, January 10th, 2016

An NFP Teacher’s Experience (1982-2015)

I am happy to share some thoughts about NFP, since we are probably unusual in that we have now studied with 4 different NFP organizations.   Shortly before our marriage in 1982, we took an NFP class from an organization that taught the mucus-only method.  We met with a very nice woman who taught us about mucus.  I think that if a man had also been involved in the teaching, it would have been helpful.  As it was, my husband was not enthusiastic and did not really believe that “normal” men did abstinence.  Between my husband’s reluctance and the fact that I could not figure out the mucus-only method, we did not use NFP.  Instead, we resorted to barrier methods for the first few years of our marriage.

Four years later, I was able to observe the return of fertility after our first baby was 14 months old, and I decided that now I only wanted to use NFP, no more contraceptives for me!  I found a new NFP organization shortly after the birth of our second son.  This group taught the sympto-thermal method.  It made so much sense to me, as a scientist by training I could easily figure it out.  Cross checking the symptoms gave me a clear picture and confidence in the effectiveness.

Yet my charts with a 3-month-old breastfeeding baby were very different from what I saw in the book.  There was little information given for breastfeeding mothers.  I received a one-page handout about postpartum that was not covered in the book.  Very powerful message there; apparently breastfeeding amenorrhea was not part of the normal course of fertility!  I eventually found through my own observations that the all-the-time mucus of breastfeeding was best ignored and to watch the cervix.  I sure wish that had been addressed!  It would have saved us a lot of unnecessary abstinence.  

When my fertility returned with this second child, again at 14 months, I now had charts that looked like those in the book, so we took a second four class series with this same NFP organization to learn to interpret my cycles.  We continued using the sympto-thermal method for several years including through a miscarriage and the birth of our daughter followed by two more miscarriages.

One day after liturgy, I found an NFP magazine at our parish hall.   This magazine provided support and continuing education for couples through yet another sympto-thermal organization.  However this organization included breastfeeding as an integral part of the cycle of fertility!  My breastfeeding amenorrhea was not abnormal (14-20 months).

We now desired to teach so I looked into all the NFP methods in order to comparison shop.  I wanted a sympto-thermal method, my husband felt it critically important to have men involved in the teaching to provide a witness to male abstinence; and I agreed with him.  The NFP group that taught us the sympto-thermal method was very expensive to train.  I spoke with them and was not interested in their focus on teaching being a moneymaking proposition versus an apostolate.  Additionally they did not teach how to use breastfeeding as a valid form of natural family planning, which I felt was very important.

Hands down, the NFP organization I had found in the magazine won out.   We first took a full four class series with a local teaching couple, which brings us to the third organization we studied NFP with.  Then we trained as teachers and began to teach 16 years after our first NFP class in 1982.  We continued teaching for 10 years, until the program was revised and eliminated the focus on breastfeeding as a form of natural family planning.  We served in our community encouraging couples to study NFP and talked about how breastfeeding spaces babies.  Recently my daughter and her fiancé took their NFP class from this organization and she was dismayed that no information was given on how breastfeeding is a form of natural family planning and is as licit to use for child spacing as is systematic NFP.  It was time for a change for us.

Shortly afterward, I found that there is one NFP training organization that has the most complete program including breastfeeding.  I learned this when I saw a letter to the editor by John Kippley in a national Catholic publication.  Now we took another full NFP series with Natural Family Planning International; which brought us to NFP organization number four! I feel that NFPI is the only NFP organization that is teaching a comprehensive program to address the challenges we face in the modern world of using natural methods of family planning.  It has multiple rules to address problematic charts.   It makes sense to include lactational amenorrhea in the NFP picture.  It is the original form of family planning throughout the ages.   For those who do not want to use systematic NFP with the charting and abstinence, we have ecological breastfeeding to help them learn how God’s design for baby care spaces babies.  There is nowhere else to learn it that I am aware of, other than Sheila Kippley’s work.
 
I have the sense that simplifying NFP methods, with marketing, apps, promoting and branding focus, etc. has apparently led the younger generation to more easily view NFP as “Catholic birth control.”  They have been raised in a world with a contraceptive mentality, of sex on demand and without babies as a consequence.  With that mindset, we are encountering people who are dissatisfied with NFP.  We believe this has led to a backlash against NFP.  They do not understand the differences between NFP and contraception, or the sacrifices inherent in marriage.  

We know that natural family planning is not the same as a contraceptive, and so does NFPI.  We must share this important difference.  NFPI is teaching with information that has stood the test of time.  So though NFPI does not have fancy branding or webinars, etc., it has the truth.  In the long run, that will prevail.  We are pleased to be part of the NFPI organization!

Margaret Turano, MS, IBCLC, LLLL  (Paul and Margaret Turano became NFPI teachers as of August 6, 2015)
_________
If you would want to get the NFPI program started in your area, contact NFPI.

 

9. Natural Family Planning: Preparation for Marriage and What Couples Have a Right to Know

Sunday, January 3rd, 2016

Conclusion:
Every form of NFP instruction should include Ecological Breastfeeding simply because it is part of God’s plan for mothers and babies.  It is not only cost-free, but it saves all sorts of money in direct baby care, and it most likely saves money in health care.  Unfortunately, the NFP movement in North America largely ignores it except for our organization, NFP International (www.NFPandmore.org).

Another organization that promotes breastfeeding and especially ecological breastfeeding is the Catholic Nursing Mothers League (www.catholicbreastfeeding.org).  It seeks to develop chapters in parishes, and pastors would do well to cultivate their services.  For purposes of marriage instruction, the point is this.  Every woman and every man has a right to know about Ecological Breastfeeding and natural baby spacing.  God’s Church should be in the forefront of spreading this good news about the way God has made us.

The right kind of natural family planning instruction can help the New Evangelization effort of the Church and provide excellent support for the magisterial teaching of the Church regarding love, marriage and sexuality.  The “right kind” of NFP course teaches the seven subjects of these blogs.  To recall once again the gist of Romans 10:14ff, the Church cannot expect its people to believe and to act as they should unless the Church clearly teaches in such a way that its people hear and understand the message

John F. Kippley
(Adapted from talk given at the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars 2015 Convention, October 24)

8. Natural Family Planning: Preparation for Marriage and What Couples Have a Right to Know

Sunday, December 27th, 2015

7.  The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: a natural way of spacing babies.  There are different patterns of breastfeeding, and all of them have a certain amount of value because of the inherent values of breast milk and the breastfeeding process.

With regard to breastfeeding and baby spacing, distinctions are critical.  In the Western world, common cultural breastfeeding patterns typically do NOT space babies.  Ecological breastfeeding, however, does provide a natural spacing of babies because it is a pattern of mother-baby closeness and frequent nursing.  Frequent suckling maintains the milk supply; frequent suckling also suppresses ovulation.  There is still confusion about this, and that’s why “breastfeeding and natural baby spacing” needs to be taught in terms of the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding.  These Standards are maternal behaviors that encourage frequent nursing.  As you will see in the following list, some of them are positive and some are negative.  However, all of them are contrary to common Western cultural nursing patterns.  The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding are as follows:

1.  Breastfeed exclusively for the first six months of life; don’t offer your baby other liquids and solids, not even water.
2.  Pacify or comfort your baby at your breasts.
3.  Don’t use bottles and don’t use pacifiers.
4.  Sleep with your baby for night feedings.
5.  Sleep with your baby for a daily-nap feeding.
6.  Nurse frequently day and night and avoid schedules.
7.  Avoid any practice that restricts nursing or separates you from your baby.

All seven standards are evidence based.  That is, published research demonstrates that each of these behaviors is associated with increased nursing.

It is highly inadequate to talk only about continued or extended breastfeeding as if that would provide the spacing many couples desire.  That language takes us back to fifty years ago when an international breastfeeding organization was saying that what they called “total breastfeeding” had a baby-spacing effect.  The problem is that such language says nothing about the importance of frequency.  My wife  and other nursing mothers noticed that there was a significant variation in the duration of breastfeeding amenorrhea—the absence of periods due to breastfeeding—among mothers doing “total breastfeeding.”  Some mothers would have a first period at three or four months postpartum while others would go for a year or more, and they wondered why.  Sheila was asked to research this, so she did.

Her research was first published in a nursing journal in 1972, and it showed that American mothers who followed the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeed went an average of 14.6 months before they had their first period.  She also found that the duration of amenorrhea more or less follows a normal distribution curve with 7% having a first period by six months and 33% still in amenorrhea at 18 months.  A second, much larger study published some years later found an almost identical average of 14.5 months of breastfeeding amenorrhea among American mothers.  More recently Sheila found independent research that supports each of the Seven Standards and published this in her book, The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor.  All the standards are important.  Drop any one standard and the odds are that fertility will soon return.

There are two great advantages of Ecological Breastfeeding.  First, it maximizes the benefits of breastfeeding-in-general.  It maintains the milk supply and the baby gets all the health benefits intended by our Creator.

Second, it is a natural way of spacing babies.  Some couples use Ecological Breastfeeding as their only form of child spacing, while others will use Systematic NFP when fertility returns if they need additional spacing.  Among providentialist couples who want to let babies come as they may, it is imperative that they be well instructed about Ecological Breastfeeding because it is clearly God’s own plan for spacing babies.

John F. Kippley
To be continued next week —