Four reasons to pray for our bishops this week

November 11th, 2018

First, see 1 Cor 12:26 about hurting.  I maintain that when 95% of Catholics, to say nothing about other baptized persons, are hurting by reason of their sinful contraceptive lives, then 100%  of the body is really hurting because so many are not pulling their weight in the work of building up the Body of Christ.  That sinfulness makes it more difficult for priests, as well as everybody else, to be chaste.

Second, the bishops have not yet repudiated as horribly wrong what they or their predecessors wrote in their 1968 response to Humanae Vitae, namely their “Human Life in Our Day.”  It contains a section titled “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent.”  Obviously, if there can be dissent against the centuries of teaching against marital contraception, there can be dissent against the centuries of teaching against sodomy.  The acceptance of marital contraception is the acceptance of the idea that we modern men and women can take apart what God has put together in the marriage act and, by logical extension, everything else in the area of love, marriage and sexuality.  There is no such thing as licit dissent from Humanae Vitae or the teaching regarding sodomy.

Third, the bishops have failed to emphasize that God has built into the human sexual act its intrinsic meaning.  Humanae Vitae teaches that the contracepted marriage act is “intrinsically dishonest.”  That means there must be a marriage act that is intrinsically honest.  JPII introduced to Papal teaching the idea of the marriage act as a renewal of the marriage covenant.  I submit that this meaning can be summarized this way: “The human sexual act is intended by God to be, at least implicitly, a renewal of the marriage covenant, for better and for worse including the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.”  First, only a marriage act.  Second a renewal of the marriage covenant.

Fourth, we don’t need more abject apologies that stop there.  We need our bishops to reaffirm confidently and firmly that the priestly sex abuse Scandal clearly points up what happens when priests do not accept and live by what the Church teaches.  The disaster of the whole sexual revolution including the current huge out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate shows what happens when fertile-age people do not accept the biblical norm that the human sexual act ought to be exclusively a marriage act. 
“What God has put together let no one take apart.” It applies with equal force to the marriage act and to marriage itself. 

Pray for our bishops as they meet this week.

John F. Kippley

Natural Family Planning and Natural Child Spacing

November 4th, 2018

A reprint on Child-Spacing by Dr. Herbert Ratner was made available to me. He had a lot to say about this topic but, liking short blogs, I will offer this paragraph:

“An insidious and subtle factor abetting the popularization of artificial child-spacing stemmed from the steady displacement of breastfeeding by artificial infant-feeding. The bottle made it possible for the mother physically to disengage herself from her complementary coupling with the infant. The infant, thus, lost control over this mother’s ovulation, since ovulation resumes earlier and more consistently in the non-lactating woman. Accordingly, the “liberated” woman resulted in a “liberated” ovary, and artificial feeding led to abnormally close births and abnormal stresses and strains within the family.”
Dr. Ratner explained how the birth control movement took off because non-nursing mothers had babies every 11 to 12 months due to bottle-feeding. (Reprinted from International Review of Naturall Family Planning, Spring 1978)

Dr. Otto Schaefer spent over 30 years in northern Canada. He arrived promoting formula but was a constant note taker and soon discovered that breastfed babies were healthier. He also learned that the traditional small Inuit family of 3 to 4 children was due only to traditional breastfeeding. These mothers lost their natural birth spacing due to the introduction of the bottle. The result: “Many complained about having ‘too many kids around,’ one of the consequences of giving up breast feeding.” (Sunrise Over Pangnirtung: The Story of Otto Schaefer, M. D. by Gerald W. Hankins, M. D., The Arctic Institute of North America, 2000; a delightful book)

Since 1969, John and I have promoted natural child spacing within the Catholic Church. It is time that those doing the evangelization and educational works of the Church start to promote and teach Ecological Breastfeeding as a form of natural family planning. It was in a physiology class in the 1954-55 school year as a high school sophmore taught by an elderly lady with white hair that I learned for the first time the effect breastfeeding had on the woman’s menstrual cycle, that breastfeeding—not childbirth—was the end of the reproductive cycle.

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding, a short read on how to space babies.

Natural Family Planning Greatly Reduces Breast Cancer

October 28th, 2018

October is the month in which emphasis is placed on finding a cure for breast cancer, but not much is said about preventing it.  Natural Family Planning is a great way to reduce a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer.

To those who are informed, the most obvious way to reduce the risk of breast cancer is simple: Never take the Pill.  If a young woman takes the Pill for 4 years or more before her first full-term pregnancy, she increases her risk of breast cancer by 44%.   The World Health Organization has stated that the Pill is in a Group 1 (worst kind) carcinogen.  Every October Pink article ought to be warning against the Pill!

Breastfeeding, God’s own plan for spacing babies—especially via ecological breastfeeding, greatly reduces a mother’s risk for getting breast cancer.  The American Institute for Cancer Research states that breastfeeding, especially exclusive breastfeeding followed by extended breastfeeding, reduces the risk of maternal breast cancer. It also decreases the risk of the child getting cancer.  Why?  Because breastfeeding helps to reduce the risk of lymphoma and leukemia.

Researchers of a 2002 study involving 147,000 women said that a major contributor to the high incidence of breast cancer in the USA is that mothers do not breastfeed or breastfeed for too short a time.  “If women in developed countries had 2.5 children, on average, but breastfed each child for six months longer than they currently do, about 25,000 breast cancers would be prevented each year, and if each child were breastfed for an additional twelve months, about 50,000 breast cancers might be prevented annually.”

What needs to be said by those involved with promoting breast cancer prevention is that taking the Pill and formula-feeding are high risk factors for breast cancer. Even when breast cancer has occurred in a family relative, the woman who breastfeeds reduces her chance of getting premenopausal breast cancer by 59%! One in 8 women will develop breast cancer and almost 40,000 die from this disease every year.

With ecological breastfeeding, the presence of amenorrhea is a factor for the decreased risk of ovarian cancer as well as breast cancer.

Natural Family Planning, whether it be systematic NFP to avoid the Pill or ecological breastfeeding, needs to be widely promoted for all its health benefits, especially during the breast-cancer prevention month of October.

For more information on breast cancer prevention, read “Breast Cancer: Risks and Prevention” by Breast Cancer Prevention Institute.

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor