Natural Family Planning and the Teaching of Morality

December 15th, 2019

The history of the Church’s teaching on this issue of chaste abstinence during the female cycle goes back to 1853.  About 1850 French veterinarians realized that mammals have a fertility cycle, and they speculated about humans.  (They speculated that the time of menses was the fertile time.  They could have been spared that error if they had paid any attention to the biblical rules against the marriage act during menses and then another five days.)  Despite the factual error, the issue reached the Vatican, and in 1853 the Sacred Paenitentiary stated that it was morally permissible for spouses to abstain during the fertile time for purposes of avoiding pregnancy provided they had serious reasons and did not engage in immoral activities during the time of abstinence.  The issue as raised again in Spain, and in 1880 the Sacred Paenitentiary reaffirmed its 1853 statement.  In Casti Connubii Pope Pius XI not only condemned contraceptive behavior but also mentioned “virtuous continence which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent…” (n. 53. Dec 31, 1930).

With regard to intent, I cannot think of any action, physical or spiritual, that cannot be made bad by a bad intention.  That’s why it is important for dioceses and parishes to require that NFP instruction provided under their auspices should include Catholic moral teaching including the call to generosity.  NFP instruction that is essentially just an amoral organ recital is seriously deficient.

John Kippley

 

 

Natural Family Planning and the Teaching of Morality

December 8th, 2019

Without the teaching of Catholic morality in NFP instruction, what results is most likely just non-hormonal contraception during the fertile time.  Without learning the specific teaching of chastity, how can ordinary folks be expected to be practice chaste periodic abstinence?  I suspect that a lot of bishops think that their NFP course is teaching chastity, but it may not be.  To find out, just take a look at the various NFP manuals.  It is not difficult to be specific.  Check out our manual.  And, of course, the other moral issue is Catholic teaching about the call to generosity and the need for sufficiently serious reason to use NFP for avoiding pregnancy.  Dr. John Billings said at one of the Collegeville summer symposia that he deliberately does not teach morality because his method stands on its own as a birth control method without any need for Church authority.  He certainly believed that teaching but thought that referring to the authority of the Church would undermine the value of the method.  I think he was mistaken, but that may still be the thinking in a significant part of the NFP movement.  Also, the social-spiritual environment has deteriorated in the last 40 years, and assumptions made in the 70s may not be valid today.

Authority.  Granted, we all have limits on what we can say, but the bishops have real authority.  And if they want the couples to learn chaste NFP, then they need to use NFPI almost exclusively or require every provider to have such teaching in their manuals and to teach it.  It is not difficult, except for the FEAR factor— fear of not being liked, fear of losing clients and money, etc. What we all need by way of motivation is not only love for God and neighbor but also a healthy fear of offending God by being afraid to teach his truths about love, marriage and sexuality.  Call it evangelphobia—fear of evangelizing.

Church leaders need to know the realities and what organizations are teaching specific morality and which ones are avoiding the subject.  In Chapter 7 of our NFP manual we include the witness of a couple who used their form of “NFP” with fertile-time immoralities for 23 years before somehow running into our material and changing to chaste NFP.  How many other  couples are there with similar experiences simply because their NFP provider failed to teach chaste periodic abstinence?

I think that it is impossible to have authentic renewal within the Church without nearly universal acceptance of Humanae Vitae and that’s also true regarding every parish marriage program.

John Kippley

Natural Family Planning: Flood of research supports breastfeeding

December 1st, 2019

I can’t remember anything like this.  I have on my desk eight breastfeeding studies published between September 6 and November 27 2019.  Sheila Kippley will be reviewing these more thoroughly next year when she does her annual review of breastfeeding research.  So for the purposes of this blog, I simply want to point out that breastfeeding is so important that every program designed for young people from adolescence to marriage preparation and/or baptism should be encouraging breastfeeding.  And not just breastfeeding but Exclusive Breastfeeding for the first six months.  And further, not just Exclusive Breastfeeding for six months but Ecological Breastfeeding for one to two or more years as Pope John Paul II recommended.  Yes, in 1995, the Pope co-hosted a Vatican conference on breastfeeding and endorsed the recommendations of WHO and UNICEF for breastfeeding one or two years and beyond. 

The September 6 research showed that breastfeeding and skin-to-skin contact in the first six days causes a significant reduction in Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths (SUID).  A previous study showed that 29% of SUIDs occurred in the first six days; breastfeeding is a significant help for maintaining life.

On October 2 the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a report on the environmental hazards of manufacturing baby formulas and concluded with a very strong recommendation for doing Exclusive Breastfeeding for six months.  The next day, a commentary in News-Medical made the main points of the BMJ report stand out.  For example: If all mothers in the UK alone did Exclusive Breastfeeding, that “would reduce carbon emissions equivalent to reducing road traffic by 50,000 to 70,000 cars each year.”

Later in October, a UNICEF report lamented that one-third of children under age five are malnourished…while two thirds are at risk of malnutrition and hidden hunger because of the poor quality of their diets.  Further, only 2 in 5 infants under six months of age are exclusively breastfed as recommended.  One conclusion is this: “Breastfeeding cold save the lives of 820,000 children annually worldwide.”

On October 16, JAMA Network Open published an important review.  From the summary: “Breastfeeding for more than 12 months was associated with a relative risk reduction of 30% for diabetes and a relative risk reduction of 13% for hypertension.”  I love two-for-one benefits.  If mom takes care of her baby in this way, then she gets a big benefit as well.

On November 7, a report from the annual scientific meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology showed that vaginal delivery and breastfeeding lessen the number of new allergy and asthma cases in children up to the age of 18 years. 

November 24: A report posted by SDD Contributor (sic) was headlined “Breastfeeding may protect mothers against depression in later life.”  A couple details: “The risk of depression decreased by 29 per cent for each additional infant breastfed and by 9.3 per cent for each additional year of breastfeeding.”  Also, “Women who breastfed for at least 47 months had 67 per cent decreased risk of depression, compared to those less than 24 months.”  This was a report on an original article in the Journal of Affective Disorders

November 27 from the International Breastfeeding Journal.  This report emphasizes some of the things in the October BMJ article but with a special emphasis on Asia, Australia and New Zealand.   From the summary: “A  ground-breaking study in 2016 showed emissions [from the manufacture of baby formulas] from just six Asia Pacific countries were equivalent to 6 billion miles of car travel.”  The first sentence in the summary conclusion: “Formula feeding is a maladaptive practice in the face of contemporary global environmental and population health challenges.”

I have to admit that claims about the World Environment tend to leave me feeling either somewhat skeptical or helpless.  Call that the Macro-Environment.  But what is reported about mother-baby breastfeeding relationship—a Micro-Environment—makes sense.  Such studies report on the real experience of babies and mothers.

The emphasis in these studies is on Exclusive Breastfeeding for six months.  A problem with that emphasis is that Exclusive Breastfeeding studies show that only about half of such breastfeeding  mothers remain without periods for six months and many will lose their milk supply in that time.  The good news is that Exclusive Breastfeeding for six months (or more) is only one of the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding.  The key to Ecological Breastfeeding is frequent nursing according to the Seven Standards, and these Standards are simply maternal behaviors that keep mother and baby together and allow the baby to suckle frequently.  Mothers who continue to do Ecological Breastfeeding will experience, on average, 14 to 15 months of breastfeeding amenorrhea (no periods).  And such mothers will use exactly ZERO ounces of manufactured baby formulas.

All of the above leads to this conclusion:  Every NFP program and every pre-marriage program and every pre-baptism class should promote and teaching Ecological Breastfeeding.  Striving to do our best for the Micro-Environment of mother and baby will automatically be the best also for the Macro-Environment.

John F. Kippley