The "Why" of NFP

If you have a moment check out Mary Alice's new article at Busted Halo. Mary Alice discusses the "why" of NFP--and does so beautifully. I hope and pray that some hearts are changed by her words.

And while we are on this topic, I want to add a little bit about why me and my husband teach NFP.

Mr. Red and I began our own NFP journey in college. Like most young women who don't belive in artificial methods of contraception, I was a nervous wreck that NFP wouldn't work and I'd be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with 10 children. Once I realized that NFP actually worked, we were relieved and then excited to share the good news with other couples.

We didn't decide to become NFP instructors, however, until we started helping with the pre-cana at our local parish. At any pre-cana, divorce is on the minds of those running the workshop. Seeing how Catholic engaged couples have a similar divorce rate to the national average (over 50%!), and couples that practice NFP have less than a 2% divorce rate, we saw NFP as a basic self-help principle to creating more stable lasting marriages.

And that gets me to the point of my post, and the heart of what Mary Alice has already written. If NFP was really just Catholic contraception, these divorce rate numbers wouldn't make sense. While NFP is just as effective as the pill or other chemical contraceptives, it is fundamentally different than these other methods of contraception. NFP alters the way we think about our sexuality and it alters the way we think about our marriage. It radically changes our hearts to love and to listen to God's call for our lives. And this is the reason that many couples who practice NFP have larger families. God has changed their hearts and given them the grace to welcome a larger than average number of children into their family.

The Church doesn't condemn the use of contraceptives in our marriage because She wants to be mean and make our lives difficult. Rather, the Church wants our marriages to succeed, and our lives to be holy and full of love. The Church in her great wisdom has laid out a blueprint for success in marriage. We teach NFP because we want other couples to have a successful, love filled, and blessed marriage.

Thanks Mary Alice for engaging this really important topic. You are a wonderful example of the beautiful openness to life in marriage. Prayers for you as you prepare to welcome your newest addition.

Responsible parenthood sometimes demands the renunciation of procreation

Yesterday there was a discussion at Danielle Bean's blog regarding family planning, or lack thereof. Danielle chimed in today, and she took a rather providential approach to the topic. (For an explanation of providentialism, see Janet Smith's article, The Moral Use of NFP). I generally really like Danielle's writing, and I hate to disagree with her, but I was a bit disturbed by her approach to family planning.

She states:

It is not selfish for a poor mother of many to remain open to life. It’s heroic.
A woman who places her trust in God and accepts new life under less than ideal circumstances is being as generous to God, to her family, and to her community as she possibly can be.
Someone else, who has never had to decide between paying for a baby’s prescription and buying food for her family, might not understand this kind of humble heroism.

I'm curious as to how she, and others who might tend towards providentialism, explain John Paul II's thoughts on responsible parenthood:

There are, however, circumstances in which this disposition [to be a responsible parent] itself demands renunciation of procreation, and any further increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty. A man and a woman moved by true concern for the good of their family and a mutual sense of responsibility for the birth, maintenance, and upbringing of their children, will then limit intercourse and abstain from it in periods in which this might result in another pregnancy undesirable in the particular conditions of their married life and family. (JP2, Love and Responsibility at 243 (emphasis added).)

John Paul is saying that there are circumstances where a couple is morally obligated to avoid a pregnancy. Discerning family size is something God calls each couple to do--the couple should not simply let nature take it course without any thinking or planning. If circumstances are such that bringing another child into the world would be imprudent (i.e. like Danielle described, a family is so poor that they must choose between paying for a babies prescription and buying food for their family), the couple, for the good of their children, should use NFP and attempt to avoid a pregnancy. It is selfish to do otherwise.

Humanae Vitae 10 states, "If we look further to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who, guided by prudent consideration and generosity, elect to accept many children." Gaudium et Spes also states: "Among the married couples who thus fulfill their God-given mission special mention should be made of those who after prudent reflection and common decisions courageously undertake the proper upbringing of a large number of children."

Having many children is thus to be the result of "prudent consideration" not a default plan for every family. The point here is that there should be discernment.

Please know that I have the utmost respect for those families blessed with unexpected pregnancies. I obviously think we should help families in need. That being said, I find it hard to call a woman (or family) heroic, who, in the midst of poverty and difficulty providing for her already born children, fails to practice the virtue of periodic abstinence.

Please also understand that I'm not one of those use-NFP-whenever-you-want people. I most certainly believe that it can be abused.

All that being said, bring on the fury :-)

**Update--After receiving an e-mail from Danielle, I just want to clarify that John Paul II wrote Love and Responsibility before he was Pope. I was not attempting to claim that JPII's teaching on responsible parenthood was made in an infallible context. Both sides of this debate lack the support of infallible church teaching. But I have JPII on my side--and that's authoritative enough to require a pretty strong counterargument.

The Great NFP Battle

For an interesting post, touching upon many of the same themes we have been discussing here, check out this article from And Sometimes Tea. And no, it's not my other blog, different Red.

Ecological Breastfeeding--A Crunchy Catholic's Dissent

For those unfamiliar with this blog, here's a few of my crunchy credentials: I cloth diaper, I make my own granola, I've had a non-hospital birth, I shop at a farmer's market, a good deal of my food is organic, I own the Ergo baby carrier, I exclusively nurse my babies for six months and I continue nursing well-beyond, I frequent Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog, and, as revealed in a previous post, I'm considering growing a moss backyard :-)

But despite my general tendency to embrace a "natural" approach to life, I must dissent from the advocates of Ecological Breastfeeding (EBF).

Before I begin, I would like to thank all of our wonderful readers for a lively and thought provoking discussion regarding the recent changes at CCL. A special thank you to Sheila Kippley for her comment on my post.

I posted the end of Ms. Kippley's comment below, but to view her thoughts in full, please see the comments on my What’s going on at CCL? post.

One respondent considered that a 40% return by 12 months was insufficient for many. There is no contradiction between practicing EBF [ecological breastfeeding] and practicing fertility awareness. According to the two studies we have posted on our website (Remfry and Prem), only 6% of breastfeeding mothers become pregnant before their first period no matter how they breastfeed. Experience shows that many, many mothers have ample signs of fertility when they ovulate prior to their first menses.

The statistics still stand. On the average, mothers who practice EBF will experience 14 to 15 months of breastfeeding amenorrhea. The 70% who experience 9 to 20 months of amenorrhea provide an almost exact mirror of the 68% of events within the first standard deviation of a normal distribution. EBF remains a wonderful form of natural family planning, and it is the preferred form for many. The normal distribution found in our studies will be found in other real life distributions, but only if the mothers follow the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding. Not following them is not “bad” or doing something “wrong,” but the biological reality is that the consequent reduction in suckling will most likely lead to a shorter duration of amenorrhea. People deserve to know all such facts so that they can make an informed decision.

As one of our other commenters noted, Sheila Kippley was a real pioneer in studying the effects of LAM in breastfeeding mothers. Many women, including myself, are grateful for her hard work and dedication to NFP research and instruction. As Ms. Kippley noted, it is a form of NFP that works really well for many women.

That being said, I would like to explain my own thoughts on EBF a bit more, and why I think CCL made the right move in getting rid of the 7 standards of EBF and opting instead to advocate only exclusive and continued breastfeeding.

Since EBF alone does not work for all women, it must be used in conjunction with fertility awareness for real reliability and, as a result, I don’t think it belongs as part of regular instruction in NFP courses. I do agree that NFP books should explain the connection between frequent suckling and LAM (as CCL does), but to advocate the 7 standards of EBF is taking things too far.

In addition, and more importantly, I don’t think that EBF is the gold standard of “natural mothering.” While I realize that there are quite a few women who choose to practice EBF, and I don’t condemn them for doing so, I hardly think that it the “ideal” way or the most “natural” way to mother one’s baby. It is just one way, and for many of us, it is not so obviously “natural.”

There are certain ways of mothering that are superior and preferred parenting choices that are natural and obvious to just about everyone. For example, it seems pretty obvious that God created a woman’s breasts to feed her infant. Alternating from this norm should only be done for a good reason, as even Pius XII once noted. Likewise, it seems pretty obvious that God intended a woman to birth her baby naturally, thus a c-section should only be performed for a good reason.

I don’t see the 7 standards of EBF as quite so obvious, and some of the standards may be very unnatural for many women. For those unfamiliar, the 7 standards are below:

1. Do exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life; don’t use other liquids and solids.
2. Pacify your baby at your breasts.
3. Don’t use bottles or 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.

(Emphasis added). Specifically, #2, #4, #5, and #6, can seem a bit un-natural to many women.

First, there is nothing “natural” about regular, long term, sleep deprivation. There are many, many, women for whom frequent night waking to nurse, even while lying in bed with their baby, leaves them feeling exhausted and unable to function well. Sleeping in chunks of less than 4 hours leaves most people feeling exhausted, especially after several months of this. For many moms, a baby in your bed means less sleep, not more.

A daily nap leaves many women more drained than before they laid down, AND a daily nap may result in hours of insomnia later in the evening. Everyone’s body reacts differently to sleep, and so for some a nap will actually result in less overall rest. Personally, unless I am pregnant, napping always results in a significantly delayed bedtime with poorer quality sleep. So again, this standard is not rising to the level of obviousness as, say, breastfeeding or natural childbirth.

Again, avoiding schedules doesn’t seem so obvious. To me, human beings thrive when functioning on a daily schedule. Sure, unexpected alterations are necessary at times and an important part of life, but a schedule is a very “natural” part of a healthy lifestyle. It seems the goal should be to get baby onto a loose schedule—like all well-functioning human beings—not to avoid schedules altogether.

All this being said, I’m not offering you my own 7 standards of breastfeeding. I’m not saying that you need to get your baby on a schedule, or that your baby should be in a separate bed, or that you should avoid taking a nap. If EBF’s parenting techniques are working for you, enjoy it. I am simply saying that the 7 standards of EBF are hardly magisterial or even obviously “natural,” though the old CCL regime seemed to think so, as evidenced by the prior CCL manual:

• Ecological breastfeeding is the type of nursing that respects the natural order.

• Because this pattern of baby care is so much more than just feeding, we also call it natural mothering.

While Ms. Kippley’s comment did not go so far as to say mothers are morally required to follow the 7 standards, it is hard to read the old CCL manual without coming to the conclusion that any alternative to EBF is less than ideal—that is, inferior.

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!

Some answers to your CCL questions

Great comments on my recent CCL post!

Just to answer a few questions:

1. The new book and materials were released in February/March of 2008. All new CCL courses are now using the new materials. They are still working on the training programs for the "specialized" courses in return of fertility after childbirth and pre-menopause. The student guide book is complete, but the teacher training in these areas is still a little rough. It will be complete in the coming months. The doctor in question was probably referring to the teacher training materials.

2. There is very little difference between Creighton, Billings, and CCL in the actual "rules" of NFP. All 3 methods are 99% effective. CCL teaches the sympto-thermal method of NFP, using all 3 signs (temp, cervix, and mucus). Billings and Creighton focus on mucus only. I personally use a mucus/cervix only method of NFP (CCL gives mucus only rules in their materials, with very clear pictures of more fertile/less fertile mucus), but I teach all 3 signs in my courses, as certain signs work better for certain women. Some women have really regular temp patterns and that enables them to better interpret a confusing mucus pattern (and vice versa). Creighton and Billings are mucus only, but the "rules" are essentially the same (especially after CCL's updates to their materials). You can take a CCL course, and then do a mucus only method of NFP. CCL's charts and materials are standardized, and they have many doctors that develop their materials and are trained on CCL charts. That being said, ANY doctor worth anything should be able to read ANY NFP chart. It's the same thing, just different symbols.

I want to emphasize again that I think all 3 teaching organizations are really great and they are all working together to make NFP more practical for couples.

3. Finally, if you are interested in taking an NFP course you can either contact your local diocese and ask about courses OR you can contact one of the following organizations directly to learn about courses/teachers in your area:

The Couple to Couple League
Creighton Model Fertility Care
The Billings Ovulation Method

4. The new manual does offer advice on charting with breastfeeding, no matter what feeding method you choose. If this is your situation, I would HIGHLY recommend the supplemental NFP course on return of fertility after childbirth.

5. Finally, if you are looking for an NFP physician, check out the One More Soul Directory for NFP only physicians and if you can't find a local Obgyn from that directory, try a midwife, they are usually much more knowledgeable about NFP.

God Bless all you women and thanks for all the comments and support!

What's going on at CCL?

The Couple to Couple League (CCL) is the largest provider of Natural Family Planning (NFP) services in the US, and it has recently gone through an extreme makeover. Making a break with the Kippleys (author of: Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing, Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood, The Art of Natural Family Planning), CCL is now promoting a more high tech, streamlined, and scientific approach to NFP. They have also adopted an altered approach to breastfeeding and child spacing and for that I give them two thumbs up! The new materials are really great, and the new student guide is a must have, with simpler rules, great computer graphics, and even a new software program (Cycle-Pro) to help chart your cycles.

Overall, I think the changes at CCL are GREAT, but I think the changes related to breastfeeding are SUPER GREAT! And here is why:

Two years ago my husband and I signed up to become NFP instructors for our diocese. We were required to receive training through CCL (this is typical of most diocesan offices), and we filled out the forms to enroll in the CCL teaching training program. This was prior to the new CCL materials and, in our application form, we were required to explain why we didn’t ecologically breastfeed our children. It was at this point that I realized just how intertwined CCL and the promoters of Attachment Parenting/ecological breastfeeding had become. If you want to know more of my thoughts on this, see a recent post of mine on this topic.

Now, I exclusively breastfeed my children, but I do not sleep with my babies, nor do I avoid pacifiers, etc. Under the old CCL regime, as NFP instructors, we would be expected to not only teach NFP, but to promote a particular style of parenting and child spacing: ecological breastfeeding/AP. At the time, we couldn’t sign the form saying we had personally practiced this type of parenting, nor would I sign anything agreeing to parent this way in the future. I explained my reasons fully in an attached essay, and we were granted an “exemption” so to speak, and because CCL was soon changing this part of the materials, we were permitted to move forward with the teacher training.

I saw the old regime’s ecological breastfeeding advocacy as problematic for the following reasons:

1. For many couples, fertility returns far sooner than couples would like, even while using ecological breastfeeding. When this happens, they are left distrusting many of the other things they learned in NFP classes.
2. Physicians, lactation consultants, and mainstream medical journals have not adopted the term “ecological breastfeeding.” This creates a disconnect between CCL and the medical community. Again, this leaves couples feeling misled about what they have learned in their NFP courses.
3. Ecological breastfeeding is REALLY difficult, and in many cases it isn’t possible to practice this method of breastfeeding—particularly in the very common situation where mom has to work part time.
4. Ecological breastfeeding is more of a parenting style/philosophy and CCL should focus on teaching NFP and promoting breastfeeding, and avoid entering into the parenting philosophy debates.

Thankfully, CCL agreed with many of these common objections, and as a result has altered their approach to NFP instruction and breastfeeding advocacy. With the new method, CCL continues to promote breastfeeding and its effect on fertility, with terms such as formula feeding, mixed feeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and continued breastfeeding. These terms are generally accepted in the medical community and explained fully in the new materials.

More importantly, CCL has moved away from prescribing breastfeeding in order to delay the return of fertility, and they will no longer refer to breastfeeding as a “form of NFP.” Rather, CCL promotes breastfeeding as part of responsible parenthood, a method of feeding that is unquestionably best for babies, and usually always best for mothers and families. While wholeheartedly promoting that “breast is best,” CCL no longer claims that a particular kind of breastfeeding is best for a particular family, and they no longer imply that an early return of fertility is the result of a mother not breastfeeding correctly. Alleluia!

Finally, CCL now provides clear and ACCURATE guidance on the return of fertility after childbirth, no matter what feeding method a family chooses.

As for how these changes came about, I don’t know the details, but I know that a lawsuit with the Kippley’s settled in 2007. For those unfamiliar with the Kippleys, they helped to found CCL, and are the authors of the original “The Art of Natural Family Planning.” Referred to as the NFP bible, the book was overwhelming in size and very intimidating for couples to flip through 400+ pages of material. The new method is significantly streamlined, and high tech, with a manual ½ the size of the old book. I think these changes will be a great help in promoting NFP and breastfeeding to a new generation of couples.

Disclaimer: While I am a CCL instructor, the previous statements and opinions are my own and I am not writing on behalf of CCL.

Sacrifices

Me--Um, my fertility just returned.

Mr. Red--Wow.

Me--Gus is only 3 months old. NFP is going to require a LOT of abstaining.

Mr. Red--(Silence.)

Me--Well, what do you think?

Mr. Red--I think it’s time to jack-up the Netflix subscription - I’ll need the unlimited plan.