Not that NFP wasn't also intended, but it would be as medicinal, and not as the primary means of spacing children. So that if a women could not for some reason bear more children, NFP is the natural means of birth prevention beyond the natural stoppage of ovulation caused by ecological breastfeeding.
According to the cult of NFP marriage is perfected by its use. So it follows in turn that the perfection of marriage is for relations to typically only occur when its least desirable to a woman. But, the concept that God would intend relations should not occur when its most desirable for a woman is unfitting. Think about it, who wins in that situation? No one. Why would God do that?
Granted, children are often spaced too closely together, but those children are spaced too closely because ecological breastfeeding is a lost cultural art. The families at my FSSP parish have children which invariably indicate that the mothers don't nurse on demand, or in some other way fail to nurse in such manner as to stop ovulation.
Ecological breastfeeding, is how God intended us to live, the latter, NFP, is used because of some defect requiring an additional assistance. I'm perfectly aware that in America virtually no one ecologically breastfeeds, and of those few who try, only a few succeed at stopping ovulation. But the defect is not in Gods creation but in our society. And as opposed to correcting ourselves, we choose to use some gadget, i.e. NFP, to mask the error.
Also Read :
Nursing babies. It's not sexual, but why do most women act like it is?
And
Organic Catholicism
__________
Good For Target
"Thanks for asking us about breastfeeding in our stores. As a family-oriented retailer, Target has a long-standing practice that supports breastfeeding in our stores."
Our society pushes formula and breastfeeding as something that is dirty.
ReplyDeleteNFP can work, but it's something that would be more supported if the church took a stance on the benefits of breastfeeding and embraced it as the preferred norm. It's not going to happen as the same men who should be rejoicing in it instead chastise women as being dirty for nursing in public... as if properly nourishing their babe the way God intended makes them wanton...
"It's not going to happen as the same men who should be rejoicing in it instead chastise women as being dirty for nursing in public"
ReplyDeleteInteresting. While it true that covering up nursing babies is a corruption of a proper understanding of modesty, I had not before thought of it as contributing to the problem of of Natural Child Spacing except insofar as women wearing clothes that that don't allow for ease of access to the breasts since women don't typically want to undress in public.
I can imagine very many reasons why relations should not occur at the point of highest fertility... most of them external. Depending upon what translation you use, they are "grave" or "serious" external factors which nature cannot accommodate. But I agree, we were not made _not_ to function -- still, art works with nature to supply what nature cannot... even here.
ReplyDeleteI agree that breastfeeding has many benefits, and should NOT be considered indecent. I live in Mexico, and here, for the most part, it isn't considered indecent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's also important to take care that the promotion of breastfeeding doesn't travel to extremes too.
My wife and I recently had a child and we mix breastfeeding and formula. The two reasons for this are simple; our baby eats often and A LOT. My wife simple couldn't handle waking up every 45 minutes to feed him. So, I give him the bottle once a night so she can sleep for 5 hours consecutively.
Also, "production" is just too low. He finishes everything that she has, and is left screaming because he's hungry. So we "top him up" with an half an ounce or an ounce from the bottle. Then he sleeps for 3 hours instead of 45 minutes. Her production has gone up a little, so we've cut down on formula. Also, the bottle I give him at night is usually milk she extracted with a pump.
The point is, despite our best intentions to breastfeed only, it just didn't work alone.
We take criticism from both sides; some people say, "Why bother? Just give him the bottle, now that you've bought everything anyway." Others say, "There's never any need for the bottle. You're just being lazy."
I know your post was about increased breastfeeding as an alternative to NFP, but Annie's idea the church should take "a stance on the benefits of breastfeeding and embraced it as the preferred norm" of natural birth control would have to be applied with extreme care. If suddenly the Church is promoting breastfeeding, this could open the door for "cultish" groups to say that women should only breastfeed, and that there's something morally with bottles, singling out women who just don't produce enough, or who choose not to for other reasons. (The "something morally wrong with bottles" part isn't an exaggeration; I've already experienced it.)
While I fully support breastfeeding because of its many benefits and because it's more natural (not to mention it saves a lot of money!), I don't think promotion needs to be done with care so as not to foster the obsession that it's the only "right" option.