Natural Family Planning International

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL
The dropping of ecological breastfeeding
About three months ago, early in 2007, Andy Alderson, CCL’s Executive Director, called a CCL teacher and said that CCL is no longer using the term ”ecological breastfeeding.” The reasons given for this decision are that the term is only specific to CCL, no one has heard of it, and it is not respected in the medical community.

During this phone conversation Mr. Alderson added that there is no moral underpinning for breastfeeding. There is too much guilt felt by bottlefeeding mothers, so Fr. Virtue’s writings on this subject will be dropped.

Has anyone heard of ecological breastfeeding?
First, let’s examine the allegation that no one has heard of ecological breastfeeding or eco-breastfeeding outside the CCL circle. That certainly piqued my curiosity so I searched on Google and Yahoo. That day (April 16, 2007) I found 107,000 Yahoo hits and 350,000 Google hits for ecological breastfeeding and 1600 Yahoo hits and 711 Google hits for “ecological breastfeeding” in quotation marks. I found 20,900 Yahoo hits and 123,000 Google hits for the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding and 34 Yahoo hits and 36 Google hits for “Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding” in quotation marks.

At the 2006 CCL Convention, attendees were told that the Roetzer breastfeeding rule or method will be taught in the new CCL program. Thus, I searched the Internet for those subjects. On April 16, 2007 I found 36 Yahoo hits and 46 Google hits for the Roetzer breastfeeding rule and 86 Yahoo hits and 294 Google hits for the Roetzer breastfeeding method without quotation marks. On two different dates I placed quotation marks around the “Roetzer breastfeeding rule” and the “Roetzer breastfeeding method” and found zero hits at Google or Yahoo. It is clear that eco-breastfeeding is much more widely referenced than is the Roetzer breastfeeding rule and/or method which can be used for only the first three months postpartum. It doesn’t make sense to say that eco-breastfeeding was dropped because only those in CCL have heard of it when even fewer have heard of the alternative.

One CCL teacher had written that eco-breastfeeding would not be used because “it confuses the general population.” If eco-breastfeeding is too unknown or too confusing to the general population, what about the Billings method, the Ovulation method, the Roetzer method or even the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) or our online Cross-Check Method? What new student has heard and knows anything about the Lactational Amenorrhea Method? All of these are unknown to the general population and therefore possibly confusing. But all of them are understood once explained.

Additional support: In an October 2005 secular women’s magazine, an article pooh-poohed the idea that breastfeeding spaces babies. Toward the end of the article, however, the author wrote that there is one form of breastfeeding that actually does space babies—and it’s called ecological breastfeeding. The author did a good job of summarizing the Seven Standards. The Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding were also promoted in a La Leche League article, “Breastfeeding and Fertility” by Christine Foster (New Beginnings, Sept/Oct 2006).

The scientific community
I don’t know how Mr. Alderson surveyed the medical community, but if ecological breastfeeding is not respected therein, that puts it in the same boat with systematic NFP.

Furthermore, I am happy to report that ecological breastfeeding has gained respect in the scientific community. H. William Taylor, Ph.D., a former CCL field representative and former CCL teacher, wrote in his doctoral dissertation that our 1972 report on ecological breastfeeding had stimulated many years of research. Our initial research was published in two scientific journals; one of those, Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, is still available today. Dr. Taylor has researched primarily ecological breastfeeding in addition to other related breastfeeding issues and has published his work in at least seven different scientific journals.

Is there an obligation to do what’s best for our kids?
Mr. Alderson said there was no moral underpinning to breastfeed.

In 1994 Fr. William D. Virtue’s dissertation resulted in this priest claiming that “the testimony of the Magisterium and moral experts confirms that it has been the constant teaching of the Church that there is a serious obligation of maternal nursing” and resulted in his 1995 book, Mother and Infant. This obligation is not mortal-sin serious, but it is not trivial either. It is a positive obligation. “The natural law obliges mothers to nurse their babies with their own milk.” (All italics in the quotes given here are Fr. Virtue’s emphasis in his 1995 book.) Apparently Fr. Virtue’s work will no longer be referenced in CCL’s future writings.

How does CCL explain the dropping of the previous CCL teaching regarding an obligation to breastfeed? There seems to be an indication, according to a reliable witness, that CCL is saying that both breastfeeding and bottlefeeding nourish and nurture an infant. If there is a further explanation, I have not heard of it.

The timing of this new announcement by the Executive Director of CCL is truly ironic. Just when the U.S. federal government has embarked on an unprecedented evidence-based campaign that stresses a maternal obligation to breastfeed, CCL abandons the notion of obligation. The federal government had tried a purely positive approach and found insufficient results, so now it is trying to make parents feel appropriately guilty if they deliberately place their children “at risk” by choosing not to breastfeed. At risk for what? At risk for a variety of unhappy effects, mostly physical health, some quite serious, both short-term and long-term. For more information on the new federal campaign, see my article, “Born to be Breastfed,” published by the Diocesan NFP Ministry (USCCB Forum, Winter/Spring 2007, p. 7-10) or it can be read easily at http://www.nfpandmore.org/bfarticles.shtml.

The winter 2007 issue of INFACT Canada newsletter stated: “It is estimated that at least 720 infant deaths could be prevented in the United States each year if breastfeeding practices were improved” (p. 5). That means that better breastfeeding could save at least two babies a day in our country. In addition, numerous diseases of both baby and mother are reduced by breastfeeding. This is demonstrated in my above article and my latest book, Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood.

This issue highlights a significant difference between the founders of CCL and its current management. When we first read Fr. Virtue’s work on breastfeeding, his emphasis on the serious obligation to breastfeed made a big impression. We asked him for clarification. By “serious” did he mean “mortal sin” type of obligation? No, he replied, but he wanted to make it clear that this obligation to do what is best for your child is not a trifle. So we brought his insights into the Fourth Edition of The Art of Natural Family Planning. Now, we understand, the CCL current management has decided to abandon any obligation talk.

In an interview Fr. William Virtue said: “While we should be sensitive to those mothers who must go to work, or are unable to nurse, it is also vital to affirm the norm God teaches in the ‘book of nature.’ When women have an opportunity to do other things, it’s tempting to give up motherhood and leave the baby in the hands of others. The basic principle of my book is that every woman need not be a mother, but every infant needs a mother. The focus is on the right of the infant to have a mother, his or her own full-time mother. By starting with the needs of the infant, we reason to the duties of the mother. It is a matter of justice. As the infant has a right to be born, to be cared for by his mother, and to be nourished by her milk, so she has corresponding obligations.” (Our Sunday Visitor, May 12, 1996)

Who does not agree that parents have an obligation to do what is best for their children within their parental abilities. In the face of all the evidence that breastfeeding is the best for their baby, how can anyone say there is no obligation to breastfeed? It just does not make sense.

Ecological breastfeeding and the Seven Standards: The principle of the Seven Standards is frequent and unrestricted nursing, not mother-baby closeness. You certainly can have mother-baby closeness without doing the Seven Standards, such as sleeping with an adopted baby or while bottlefeeding. The specific actions of a nursing mother are important if she is interested in the breastfeeding infertility that is part of God’s plan for mother and baby through breastfeeding. For example, the baby should sleep with his mother. This is important. Research shows that the baby who sleeps alongside his mother breastfeeds twice as often and nurses three times longer compared to the nursing baby who does not sleep with his mother (James McKenna, Tri-State Breastfeeding Advocates Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 25, 2006).

For those who want to learn more about ecological breastfeeding, go to Part 3 of the NFP How-To manual at our website. Pages 1 and 2 cover the importance of breastfeeding, our topic above. Most women who say eco-breastfeeding does not work have not followed the Seven Standards; the subject of why eco-breastfeeding infertility did not work is covered on pages 9 and 10 in Part 3 of the manual. (We have been getting excellent feedback on this section of the online manual.) The 14 pages of Part 3 on eco-breastfeeding can be downloaded for free.

The online manual covers everything one needs to know about systematic NFP as well as eco-breastfeeding. It is free, short (84 pages), and easy to understand. Couples are learning from this manual and teaching from it as well. The obligation to breastfeed is covered also at our website in the Question Box.

What do you think about all these changes at CCL? You are welcome to respond privately at our website below http://www.nfpandmore.org/contact.shtml or at this blog site.

Sheila Kippley
NFP International
www.nfpandmore.org
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005)
Co-author: Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book (e-book
at this website, 2005)

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL
In early 2007 we were told by a reliable source that CCL now teaches or plans to teach
1) that if breastfeeding is done only for breastfeeding infertility at the expense of baby, mother or family, then one might be “using” the baby or using the mother or family, and
2) that breastfeeding is not a form of natural family planning (NFP).

“Using” the baby
The inference that a mother could be “using” her baby has upset several mothers I know. First, the mother does not breastfeed. Only the baby does the breastfeeding! You cannot force a baby to breastfeed. Many mothers have tried without success to encourage their babies to nurse when weaning occurred unexpectedly early.

An emphasis on the possibility of using her baby may place undue worry upon a mother’s shoulders and may cause a mother to nurse less or stop altogether. Or it may discourage some mothers from nursing. A mother does not need a guilt trip for taking the time to do what is in God’s plan for her as a mother.

Breastfeeding is already a selfless act on the part of the mother. It is a constant commitment, a never-ending task for her. Anyone familiar with breastfeeding can’t think in terms of the nursing mother being selfish or individualistic. It’s almost contradictory. The easy way out or most selfish way out for the new mother is not to breastfeed because of the inconvenience involved. She would not have to be there to meet the needs of her baby at the breast. Breastfeeding takes time; we as parents are always told to spend time with our kids, including our babies. As I noted in Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood, in the breastfeeding relationship “It is very difficult for a mother to abuse her baby or to use her baby for other purposes.”

During a retreat talk given on April 21, 2007, my husband explained that some are now saying you can “use” the baby when breastfeeding. What was the reaction of the attendees to this new teaching? Only laughter because it didn’t make sense. This “using the baby” is such an important issue that it will be covered more thoroughly at a later date. Suffice it to say that God is the author of breastfeeding and thus breastfeeding is a moral good.

Ecological breastfeeding is NOT a form of NFP?
Obviously I disagree with the proposal that breastfeeding is not a form of NFP. In my opinion, the best way for couples to space their children’s births when starting their families is by following the Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding—with systematic NFP used only as needed.

Eco-breastfeeding is the most natural form of NFP. Steve Koob of One More Soul apostolate agrees and stated this view in his comment for one of our first blogs. God’s plan for spacing babies is breastfeeding, and this form of natural family planning has been present since the beginning of the human race.

While ecological breastfeeding does not require the daily observation and recording of systematic NFP, it definitely is a form of NFP. Further, when it is taught as a form of NFP, the breastfeeding mom will understand the meaning of both her amenorrhea and the signs of fertility when they appear. For example, a woman who has gone 18 months without menstruation can say, “I’ve been infertile because my periods have not returned yet.” Another woman might say, “I think my periods are about to return because I am experiencing lots of mucus and my child is now two years old. I usually expect menstruation or fertility to return at about this time.”

Scientifically recognized
If there is one aspect of natural family planning that has been recognized in the scientific literature since 1950, it is the relationship between breastfeeding and postpartum infertility. The research began very tentatively, but soon it was clear that a certain pattern of breastfeeding significantly delayed the return of fertility. Additional research, including our own, enabled us to describe this pattern in the Seven Standards of ecological breastfeeding. It is also scientifically established that other forms of breastfeeding do NOT significantly postpone the return of fertility.

Despite the scientific evidence that ecological breastfeeding plays a major role in maintaining a lengthy amenorrhea after childbirth and its positive impact on natural family planning via natural child spacing, it appears that CCL is now proposing that breastfeeding is NOT a form of NFP.

If what we have heard is correct, there’s an irony in the timing of CCL’s abandonment of its former advocacy of ecological breastfeeding as a form of NFP. As I write this, I am also preparing a talk to deliver at La Leche League’s 50th Anniversary Conference this summer in Chicago. My subject: “The Seven Standards: Ecological Breastfeeding for a New Generation.”

This reminds me of the time 36 years ago when Dr. Konald Prem and I were speakers on a panel on breastfeeding infertility at the 1971 La Leche League Convention. In a pre-convention private meeting with Dr. Prem in the Twin Cities area, we discussed our respective roles on that panel. Then John and I asked him if he would be interested in helping us start an NFP organization in which couples taught other couples. You know the results.

To ignore ecological breastfeeding is to abandon 36 years of tradition within the CCL organization.

To deny that ecological breastfeeding is a form of Natural Family Planning is to deny scientifically established reality and to ignore the reality experienced by thousands of CCL-taught couples over the last 36 years.

For CCL to change course now does not make any sense to us. Does it make any sense to you?

If someone says that CCL is not abandoning ecological breastfeeding but is only dropping the term, I respond that all of the substitute phrases I’ve seen (full breastfeeding, extended breastfeeding, and long term breastfeeding) are highly unsatisfactory, might lead to confusion, and will reinvigorate the old wives’ tale that breastfeeding does NOT space babies. In my opinion, that would be an injustice to the NFP movement as well as to individual couples.

Considerable research on breastfeeding infertility can be found at http://www.nfpandmore.org/nfpresearch.shtml .

Sheila Kippley
NFP International
www.nfpandmore.org
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005)
Co-author: Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book
(e-book at this website, 2005)

“In my 30 years in Brazil, I saw many promising apostolates rise and then fall as they abandoned the charisms of their founders.”—Bishop Karl Jozef Romer, Pontifical Council for the Family, 2002 CCL Convention.
__________________________

Ecological Breastfeeding and CCL

What happened in 2006 with regard to CCL and ecological breastfeeding?

CCL’s Capital Campaign
In early 2006, CCL’s Capital Campaign literature said that the concept of ecological breastfeeding would be taught during the regular course. Those wanting detailed information about breastfeeding could attend a supplementary class at a later date.
The CCL capital campaign booklet states:
Since our current audience is largely engaged couples, the new
course will better address their needs by moving detailed
information on topics, such as ecological breastfeeding and
premenopause into “supplementary” classes. Although these
concepts will be presented to all couples attending a course,
only couples who require more detailed information on topics
such as breastfeeding, the return of fertility after childbirth, or
premenopause need attend these specific classes.

That’s the last I’ve seen of “ecological breastfeeding” in recent CCL-authored material.

CCL’s Family Foundations
The November/December 2006 issue of Family Foundations was devoted mostly to the topic of breastfeeding. In this issue the CCL representatives used the following terms for breastfeeding: “extended breastfeeding,” “long term breastfeeding,” and “full breastfeeding.” “Ecological breastfeeding” was absent. In fact, the last two times I saw “ecological breastfeeding” used in Family Foundations was in the July/August 2006 issue when Chris Owen was covering the history of NFP and in the September/October 2006 issue when someone mentioned it in the letters section. Ecological breastfeeding no longer seems to be in the CCL representatives’ current vocabulary.

2006 CCL Convention
At the June 2006 CCL Convention, Gerri Laird, Pilot Coordinator for CCL and the wife of a CCL Board member, told a CCL teacher that the term ecological breastfeeding will not be used and that CCL will probably follow the American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidelines about not co-sleeping. On this point, the AAP has been the subject of considerable informed opinion to the contrary. See the last sentence below this blog for information on breastfeeding and safe co-sleeping.

Also, at the 2006 CCL Convention, the new changes were explained. Attendees were told that two breastfeeding rules would be taught: the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (LAM) and the Roetzer breastfeeding rule. Both are short-term rules. The Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding were not taught at this Convention nor were they mentioned.

Popcak’s Heart, Mind & Strength Weblog
In December 2006, there was a blog discussion at http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/index.asp (archive: weeks of Dec 3 and of Dec. 10, 2006) on what CCL would be teaching with regard to breastfeeding. This blog was the result of an interview that Fr. Richard Hogan had with the National Catholic Register. The discussion opened with “Yes, Yes…But what about ecological breastfeeding?” (Dec. 4). It was evident from the discussion that there was concern about what CCL would be teaching in the area of breastfeeding. Would it be different from the past? Or would CCL continue to teach the Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding?

Andy Alderson, Executive Director of CCL, responded to the weblog (Dec. 12) but failed to answer whether or not CCL would be teaching ecological breastfeeding. There was only one sentence in his response that contained the word “breastfeeding”: “I would simply like to add that in addition to fully supporting every teaching of the Church, Fr. Hogan is also completely supportive of the beauty and practical advantages of extended breastfeeding.” (my emphasis)

Fr. Hogan also responded to the weblog (Dec. 12) but said nothing about breastfeeding. Thus with regard to the breastfeeding, late in 2006 CCL ignored the public question as to whether or not CCL would continue to teach ecological breastfeeding.

Current Capital Campaign
Out of curiosity I recently checked CCL’s website regarding their capital campaign. As of April 16, 2007, CCL’s capital campaign still promised to promote ecological breastfeeding:
“The new program will be less complex, easier to teach, learn & understand, yet will still provide 99% effectiveness, morality, and promotion of ecological breastfeeding.”

The promise by CCL to continue to promote eco-breastfeeding in their capital campaign booklet certainly raises a few questions: Where was the promotion of ecological breastfeeding when the LAM and Roetzer rules of breastfeeding were being explained at the 2006 CCL Convention? Where was the promise to teach ecological breastfeeding at the Popcak weblog?

CCL’s “Exended Breastfeeding”
Why did Mr. Alderson and Father Hogan avoid a direct answer to the public question about ecological breastfeeding, and why did Mr. Alderson use the term “extended breastfeeding”? What does CCL mean by that term? What is the difference between extended breastfeeding and ecological breastfeeding? What’s required for a mother to practice extended breastfeeding? Does extended breastfeeding space babies? At the 2006 Convention talks, CCL emphasized that research backed all their teaching methods. What research has been done on extended breastfeeding to show that this type of breastfeeding spaces babies?

Sheila Kippley
NFP International
www.nfpandmore.org
Author: Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood (Sophia, 2005)
Co-author: Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book (e-book
at this website, 2005)

PS: If you want information about breastfeeding and safe co-sleeping, please go to “links” at our website, www.nfpandmore.org. Information is given on “Safe Bedsharing for Mother and Baby” by several sources and on the “Reactions to the AAP’s Statement on SIDS,” especially as it pertains to infant sleep and pacifier use. These reactions are given by prominent organizations.