Re: Re: not adding our own opinions

[Guest guest]

Considering the needs of the newborn child or young infant being taught by well-intentioned but perhaps misguided parents to "cry himself to sleep" or to "not become spoiled and demand instant gratification", and since the mother's face in this analysis is the living and present icon (for the young child) of the face of God that he will later learn to long for, and the milk the icon of the doctrine of the Church, that he will later have to learn to trust, can we not make the anguished words of the writer of Psalm 22 become the words for the inexpressible sentiments of a young child crying himself to sleep?...

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?3My God, I call by day, but you do not answer; by night, but I have no relief.4Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the glory of Israel.5In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted and you rescued them.6To you they cried out and they escaped; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.73 But I am a worm, hardly human, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.8All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me:9"You relied on the LORD--let him deliver you; if he loves you, let him rescue you."10Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother's breast.

Child bearing saves you now (1 2:15)

Tsakanikas says...

Hence we arrive at the reason we began our discussion with the Irenaean theodicy

after the ‘Introduction’. In today’s liberal Western societies, “structures of sin†[36]

have developed which attack the mother’s inclination to remain with the child through

the first years of infancy in order to nurse the child. Often, couples are trapped in

financial situations which require dual incomes and force women to return to work

apart from the family or else lose the house which shelters the family. Even worse,

false ideologies present society with false notions of freedom and equality [37] which

get ingrained into our social fabric and its institutions. [38] Freedom becomes

indifference to our obligations (without societal disapproval) rather than freedom to

develop according to an anterior order. [39] Like alcoholics addicted to drink, the

modern Western couple can not admit their relationships are in disorder in their

addiction to careers which are destroying their families.

In short, it seems the whole world is working against us fulfilling God’s plan for us to

develop within our personal relationships and obligations; the relationships designed to

give us true freedom through fulfillment of obligations by continuing to make sincere

gifts of ourselves. [40] In this giving of ourselves, we reveal the freedom found within

the Persons of the Trinity, who are fully persons. They alone define what love and

personhood are in totally giving of themselves to one another in so perfect a manner

that they are one in being: “God is love†(1 4:8b).

Our personal development is fulfilled by responding to the moral natural law and the

obligations it reveals in the personal order; for the Eternal law is love and the moral

natural law is simply a participation in love. To get trapped into abandoning our

duties to spouse or children divides us interiorly and stunts our development as human

persons (which are defined in large part by our relationships). A mother is

disintegrated and not the person she is meant to be when she is not fulfilling the

relationship to the child which defines her as mother. A father is disintegrated and not

the person he is meant to be when he is not fulfilling the relationship to the child

which defines him as father. [41] Husband is not truly husband and wife not truly

wife, etc…There are obligations within family relationships which come before all

else.

Moral living is not a science or rationalist game in which the answers to life are

imbedded as predicates within their subjects. Humans are not pure mind but rather

embodied minds ordered towards union with God. Moral living is an art and

discerning the Divine Law is a matter of imitation of its greatest master, Jesus Christ.

Being true to His family obligation to love the Father in a world full of structural and

personal sins led to His crucifixion. Wanting us to be true to our family obligations

Jesus said, “Take-up your cross and follow me.â€

It is in laying down our lives for our beloveds that we grow into the persons we were

meant to be and so participate in the sacrificial love of Christ which saves us.

Mothers lay down their lives for their children when they give-up careers that will not

allow them to fulfill their duties to nurse their children. Fathers lay down their lives

when they take-on more abstinence and deny themselves [42] for the good of their

wives (negatively affected by suppression of hormones during maternal nursing) and

the good of children who need to be nursed. [43] In fact, the relationship of husband

and wife is ordered toward children and ordered by creation (Irenaean style) and nature

toward their salvation as they must sacrifice themselves in order to fulfill the

relationship of mother and father. Thus, being ordered towards children, marriage is

ordered towards union with God as fatherhood and motherhood necessarily entail

participation in sacrificial love:

In revealing and in reliving on earth the very fatherhood of God, a man is

called upon to ensure the harmonious and united development of all the

members of the family: he will perform this task by exercising generous

responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a

more solicitous commitment to education [begun in maternal nursing], a

task he shares with his wife. [44]

For such reason it is no wonder that St. says the woman (but also the man) will

be saved “through childbearing†(1 2:15).

Conclusion

The “life conceived under the heart of the mother†is what saves mother and father

now. The nuptial love initially expressed by the future parents was in some ways

naïve and immature, but full of goodness and trust in Providence. Had they been fully

conscious of the demands that a child would make upon them, without such trust they

may have considered contraception and remained in their immaturity and selfishness.

Instead, they expressed themselves in the language of the body that meant real self-

donation and love to the other. In turn, through this act of self-donation, God opened

the narrow gate and invited them to enter and remain upon the path they had chosen; a

path “recovering the depths of man’s primitive ordering to the mystery of God

revealed in Jesus Christ.†[45] Salvation is not just a matter of avoiding sin, but of

being taken-up into the mystery of God’s love [46] ; a process initiated for humans

when God brings them into existence as a bodily person.

Husband and wife are thereby initiated into a great mystery and revelation of theP is right drools wasThe

sacramentality of the body: “This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first

form of communion between persons. For by his innermost nature man is a social

being; and if he does not enter into relations with others he can neither live nor

develop his gifts.†[47] These gifts within the nuptial meaning of the body were

developed when his wife’s breasts - which were initially a path to sexual

expressiveness - were transformed by conception of a child and began to reveal the

higher order to which they were directed: sacrificial love. Upon birth the woman can

no longer hide the child beneath her heart but she can express this desire when she

pulls the child up close to her heart and lets him feed upon her breasts.

As the child feeds, he gazes upon his mother’s face and the order of being and

freedom is again revealed. Freedom falls within an anterior order of receptivity [48]

(the Pneumatological dimensions) and our development awaits the initiation of others

to call us forth to what we were meant to be. A quote from Schindler’s article

“Christology and the Imago Dei†is most appropriate to our topic:

Thus we can see why Balthasar, in his philosophical anthropology, insists

that the mother’s smile is the paradigm for understanding human being (and

via analogy, all of cosmic being). The key again, is the primacy of the

Other: the objective presence of the Other which is first a presence of love,

and which therefore goes forth first in the warmth of a smile. The smile

gradually penetrates and awakens the subjectivity of the child, evoking the

response of a smile in return. The mother-child relation, in other words, is

the created analogue for Trinitarian beauty: as creatures, we are always like

the child awaiting the loving initiative of the other. [49]

The real center of this essay then is not just nursing but the importance of the

development of the virtues. In the end, it is not even just about the virtues but rather

Christian marital spirituality. This author is not just a male, but a father. As a youth

he did not have the eyes of faith to see God’s hand in designing the world to lead to

knowledge of Him through self-sacrifice; the process by which the scales of

selfishness are made to fall from one’s eyes. As a husband he had to overcome the

sins of his youth which led him to see a woman’s breasts solely as objects of sexual

desire; sex for selfish satisfaction. Despite sinfulness, as a father trying to be faithful

to his calling, breasts became seen as the hearth upon which children made in the

imago Dei are called to grow into the imago Christi. [50] They are ordered towards

sanctification and the development of the virtues.

It is not just for fathers to have the eyes to see in their own families but to share this

vision with their neighbors and make it easier upon wives to exercise their calling to

motherhood for the sake of our children to whom we owe the debt of our solicitude.

We are reminded in Familiaris Consortio that:

To the injustice originating from sin-which has profoundly penetrated the

structures of today's world-and often hindering the family's full realization

of itself and of its fundamental rights, we must all set ourselves in

opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ

Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to

have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

[51]

For, “Just as the intimate connection between the family and society demands that the

family be open to and participate in society and its development, so also it requires

that society should never fail in its fundamental task of respecting and fostering the family.†[52]

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

“Our fundamental purpose is not to go out and help the poor. For us, this has only been a means. Our purpose is to maintain the Catholic faith within us, and to allow its diffusion to others through the instrument of charity.†Blessed Frederic Ozanam, a 19th century founder of the Society of Saint De

Re: not adding our own opinions

Of course we must tell couples that contraception is intrinsically immoral and a serious sin! That wasn't what I meant-only that we should never present our own opinions as the teachings of the Church.

I did nurse my children and I think it is important. However, I was only suggesting that the Church does not teach that ecological breastfeeding and homeschooling are mandatory. NFP teachers should also acknowledge that.

Many couples know so little about what the Church actually teaches. We should encourage them to read the Catechism and other authoritative documents for themselves.

Jul 13, 2011 01:26:46 PM, nfpprofessionals wrote:

===========================================

And as a Catholic who taught and used NFP for religious reasons to start with (though initially not as a Catholic) but thereafter for all sort of other reasons, I find the word 'burdens' in the subject line of this post very troubling.

NFP is a burden, if there is a problem which makes it so. It's part of God's plan; it's part of the way we were made; if there is something in the way we lead our lives which lead us to fidn it a vburden, then that's a sign that our lives are not being led in accordance with God's plan. It may be that we have not read the language of the body correctly; or that we have not understood our covenant of marriage correctly, or that we have allowed the pressures and pleasures of a hedonistic society to override our natural selves; or it may be that there are medical problems - but if NFP has been taught properly, in the context of the deep meaning and joy of married sexuality, is a burden it's sign of a problem beyond the use of NFP itself. the answer isn't to say 'Oh, that's too difficult for some people, we won't bother to tell them about it'.

Breastfeeding is a burden, if there is a problem which makes it so. It's part of the way we were made; it's part of the language of the body. It's an act of self-giving love; it's used Biblically as a sign of God's love. It's natural. If it's a burden there are other problems; it may be that we have not read this language of the body correctly, or that the pressures of a hedonistic and wage-slave society have distorted the sense of values. Or it may be that there are medical problems; but if breastfeeding is a burden, then it's a sign of other problems, and I don't think we serve anyone by pretending otherwise.

When we married, nether Louise nor I had any recollection of ever seeing a child breastfed. We each had one sister, only a couple of years younger, and no cousins much younger; we were the first of our own generation to be marrying. If we hadn't heard about breastfeeding from our NFP teachers, we would almost certainly not have tried it, and how much poorer our lives would have been.

Of course, you can teach anything in such a way as to make it a burden. Teach the rules of NFP without the joy of a deepened understanding of married sexuality, and you make it a burden; you've only given a small part of the story. Teach the 'Seven Standards' or any other rule-driven approach to breastfeeding, without the radically different approach to parental love, and you've only told part of the story.

And if it's a burden, whether it's NFP or breastfeeding, find where the real problems lie, an address them, rather than giving up on such a great good because the enemy finds ways of whispering in ears.

Aldred

As a Catholic who used and taught NFP primarily for religious reasons I've followed the recent discussions with sadness. I think part of these conflicts couples have are our fault. NFP is difficult and requires a good deal of self-control. It means acknowledging that God is God and that we follow His instructions and His example. However, I also feel strongly that we have no right to insist, or even imply, that God requires everyone to ecologically breastfeed or to homeschool. Let's stick to what the Catechism says about God's law and not our personal interpretations.

peace and prayers,

Gaes

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

You know, I never find it necessary to tell couples that contraception is intrinsically immoral and a serious sin.  I just tell them why fertility, and the way NFP deals with it, is a natural part of Christian marriage, and a true reflection of God's love; and it's then obvious that the alternative isn't right.   People use NFP in the long term because it's right, not because contraception is wrong; just as they live a Christian life by loving God, not because they avoid sin. 

NFP isn't actually mandatory, of course, either.   But that's no reason not to promote it, and if people struggle with it, we don't treat that as a reason not to promote it - we look at the wider context and find why it's a problem for them - don't we?

Why, if someone is struggling with breastfeeding, don't we do the same - rather than immediately saying breastfeeding is somehow naturally difficult and burdensome?   Aldred

Of course we must tell couples that contraception is intrinsically immoral and a serious sin!  That wasn't what I meant-only that we should never present our own opinions as the teachings of the Church.

I did nurse my children and I think it is important. However,  I was only suggesting that the Church does not teach that ecological breastfeeding and homeschooling are mandatory.  NFP teachers should also acknowledge that.

Many couples know so little about what the Church actually teaches.  We should encourage them to read the Catechism and other authoritative documents for themselves.

Jean

Jul 13, 2011 01:26:46 PM, nfpprofessionals wrote:

===========================================

And as a Catholic who taught and used NFP for religious reasons to start with (though initially not as a Catholic) but thereafter for all sort of other reasons, I find the word 'burdens' in the subject line of this post very troubling.

NFP is a burden, if there is a problem which makes it so.  It's part of God's plan; it's part of the way we were made; if there is something in the way we lead our lives which lead us to fidn it a vburden, then that's a sign that our lives are not being led in accordance with God's plan.  It may be that we have not read the language of the body correctly; or that we have not understood our covenant of marriage correctly, or that we have allowed the pressures and pleasures of a hedonistic society to override our natural selves; or it may be that there are medical problems - but if NFP has been taught properly, in the context of the deep meaning and joy of married sexuality, is a burden it's sign of a problem beyond the use of NFP itself.  the answer isn't to say 'Oh, that's too difficult for some people, we won't bother to tell them about it'.

Breastfeeding is a burden, if there is a problem which makes it so.   It's part of the way we were made; it's part of the language of the body.   It's an act of self-giving love; it's used Biblically as a sign of God's love.   It's natural.   If it's a burden there are other problems; it may be that we have not read this language of the body correctly, or that the pressures of a hedonistic and wage-slave society have distorted the sense of values.  Or it may be that there are medical problems; but if breastfeeding is a burden, then it's a sign of other problems, and I don't think we serve anyone by pretending otherwise.

When we married, nether Louise nor I had any recollection of ever seeing a child breastfed.  We each had one sister, only a couple of years younger, and no cousins much younger; we were the first of our own generation to be marrying.   If we hadn't heard about breastfeeding from our NFP teachers, we would almost certainly not have tried it, and how much poorer our lives would have been.  

Of course, you can teach anything in such a way as to make it a burden.  Teach the rules of NFP without the joy of a deepened understanding of married sexuality, and you make it a burden; you've only given a small part of the story.   Teach the 'Seven Standards' or any other rule-driven approach to breastfeeding, without the radically different approach to parental love, and you've only told part of the story. 

And if it's a burden, whether it's NFP or breastfeeding, find where the real problems lie, an address them, rather than giving up on such a great good because the enemy finds ways of whispering in ears.  

Aldred

On 13 July 2011 17:17, Gaes  wrote:

As a Catholic who used and taught NFP primarily for religious reasons I've followed the recent discussions with sadness. I think part of these conflicts couples have are our fault. NFP is difficult and requires a good deal of self-control. It means acknowledging that God is God and that we follow His instructions and His example. However, I also feel strongly that we have no right to insist, or even imply, that God requires everyone to ecologically breastfeed or to homeschool.  Let's stick to what the Catechism says about God's law and not our personal interpretations.

peace and prayers,

Gaes

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Father I don't necessarily agree that we're "all on the same side", though we need not be unduly disturbed about it. There is good will here, but as you will increasingly see many are biased against seeing these things, because they have vested personal interests at stake and, for some, this sounds like women are being judged. It is imply a fact that it can be enormously difficult for mothers to be completely objective about this subject. I understand that, but will not let it interfere with diffusing this truth more generally, mainly because the good of children, marriages, and family/society is at stake.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

“Our fundamental purpose is not to go out and help the poor. For us, this has only been a means. Our purpose is to maintain the Catholic faith within us, and to allow its diffusion to others through the instrument of charity.†Blessed Frederic Ozanam, a 19th century founder of the Society of Saint De

Re: not adding our own opinions

Dr. Pedulla,

I just want to clarify the point that choosing not to ecologically breastfeed does not equate to letting a child cry it out or not meeting his needs. Some mothers may choose to cry it out, and whether I agree with this parenting philosophy or not still doesn't make it a moral choice. There are several points of the 7 Standards that I don't follow, including cosleeping. However, I nurse them on demand and I have never let my babies "cry it out". It's not as black and white as you make it.

> As a Catholic who used and taught NFP primarily for religious reasons I've followed the recent discussions with sadness. I think part of these conflicts couples have are our fault. NFP is difficult and requires a good deal of self-control. It means acknowledging that God is God and that we follow His instructions and His example. However, I also feel strongly that we have no right to insist, or even imply, that God requires everyone to ecologically breastfeed or to homeschool. Let's stick to what the Catechism says about God's law and not our personal interpretations.

>

> peace and prayers,

> Gaes

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Some may wonder why I am "coming on so strongly" on the EBF issue, especially of late, even at the risk of making some angry or alienating them. One of the reasons is that I perceive that marriage and family are under major attack and it may well be that we are at the point -- note the gay "marriage" issue in my former and beloved home state of NY recently -- where the larger society and the state may not for the foreseeable future provide any protection for the family, so that families and especially Christian (most especially Catholic) families will need to preserve what is worth preserving in our culture, even while saying goodbye to many things, even some pleasant and in themselves not evil things, for the sake of keeping God's plan for the family alive in the world. For the Church and society to survive the family must survive, which is one of the essential insights of II, and the need for a vigorous defense of marriage and of the family has been also a major concern of Benedict XVI.

This is much like what St. Benedict of Nursia had to do at the time of the crumbling of the Roman Empire -- at one point seeing the Rome itself was not salvageable -- and its was this kind of initiative which in the end preserved the best of that culture, giving us the classics, the preserved Bible, human and just methods of jurisprudence, the natural law thinking of Cicero and others, equality of womanhood, etc., i.e., things which now we have and owe all to their care to preserve them. Societies without hope -- and increasingly that defines ours -- are ones that don't care about the future, so they have no vested intererest in the family, something that at its core is really about hope and about the future isn't it?

It is in times like this where we need to begin to think of the basics, begin to think of those things that are the sine qua nons, so to speak, but also which are things that involve the waking up -- sometimes seemingly shockingly -- of sensibilities long lost or forgotten. It is this way with EBF, which if we apply 's theology of the body to can be seen as a primordial (most basic and essential) I-Thou, self-giving relationship in the family, crucial to its health and salvation.

Later I will share a testimony of gratitude I received from someone who saw our exchanges here about EBF the last few days, and in that testimony expresses the need for this info much better than I have.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

“Our fundamental purpose is not to go out and help the poor. For us, this has only been a means. Our purpose is to maintain the Catholic faith within us, and to allow its diffusion to others through the instrument of charity.†Blessed Frederic Ozanam, a 19th century founder of the Society of Saint De

Re: not adding our own opinions

Dr. Pedulla,

I just want to clarify the point that choosing not to ecologically breastfeed does not equate to letting a child cry it out or not meeting his needs. Some mothers may choose to cry it out, and whether I agree with this parenting philosophy or not still doesn't make it a moral choice. There are several points of the 7 Standards that I don't follow, including cosleeping. However, I nurse them on demand and I have never let my babies "cry it out". It's not as black and white as you make it.

> As a Catholic who used and taught NFP primarily for religious reasons I've followed the recent discussions with sadness. I think part of these conflicts couples have are our fault. NFP is difficult and requires a good deal of self-control. It means acknowledging that God is God and that we follow His instructions and His example. However, I also feel strongly that we have no right to insist, or even imply, that God requires everyone to ecologically breastfeed or to homeschool. Let's stick to what the Catechism says about God's law and not our personal interpretations.

>

> peace and prayers,

> Gaes

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

DominicI think we are all on the same page. For me, it is just frustrating to hear/listen/read of folks who should be- and really are- on the "same side", seem like they are creating obstacles and putting up roadblocks- demanding all or nothing. Being unbending and unyielding, when we know that Christ himself went to the sinners and met them where they were. I know from experience that it begins with baby steps. We ARE counter culture. I fight it every single day and that is not an exaggeration. I am sure others do too. Like you, I am very concerned, really- horrified - at much of our culture. I been slammed up against it, rammed through it, wrung out to dry, and felt like running and hiding in a little hole

all curled up in a ball. I get through some days by nothing but the Grace of God. A priest told me not long ago, that sometimes, our role is just to sit at the foot of the cross. Just to be there. to grieve, to hurt with Jesus for all we know is wrong. We are both the witnesses and the ones to bear witness. When we combine our suffering and our hurting hearts with that of Jesus, through - it will be perfected and used by them. I doubt you alientated any of us. To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:41 AMSubject: Re: Re: not adding our own opinions

Some may wonder why I am "coming on so strongly" on the EBF issue, especially of late, even at the risk of making some angry or alienating them.

>