Archive for the ‘Ecological Breastfeeding’ Category

Natural Family Planning: The Daily Nap for Natural Spacing

Sunday, May 26th, 2019

When I had little ones I noticed that other moms, even bottle-feeding mothers, would take the phone off the hook and take a short nap.  This was back in the early 60s.  We needed the rest; it refreshed the mother to deal with the rest of the day.   Children in kindergarten in those days took a rug to school so they could lie down for a short rest.  Why not children at home?  When I had a baby, a two-year old, and a  four-year old, we would all get into bed together and rest sometime after lunch.  I would let the four-year old know that we would get up in 30 minutes if she was still awake.  Another mother laid across the only door to the room.  Her other children could not leave the room without waking her.

The Daily Nap became the Fifth Standard of Ecological Breastfeeding.  That afternoon nap with a nursing baby is important.

That was illustrated by 3 surveys I recently received from a mother who used primarily a pattern of ecological breastfeeding for her three babies born when she was ages 27, 32, and 35.

With all 3 babies, this mother did exclusive breastfeeding for 7 months, did extended breastfeeding (6 years, 4 1/4 years and 4.3/4 years), used no schedules, pacifiers or bottles, slept with her babies during the night (for 39 months, 29 months-3 weeks, and 41 months-2 weeks), always left the house with her babies until they were 18, 13 and 14 months old), and relied on breastfeeding amenorrhea with all three babies without conceiving.

This mother was very good about following the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding with her first baby and went 25 month-1 week before the return of her first menstruation.

With her second baby, she did not do the daily nursing naps during the first 6 months postpartum.  At 5 months-2 weeks, she experienced her first menses.  She began the daily nursing nap with the baby and went back into amenorrhea until 16 months postpartum. 

With her third baby, she had some bleeding and began again the daily nursing nap.  She went back into breastfeeding amenorrhea for 3 more months and had her menstruation return at 14 months-2 weeks.  She felt she experienced an early return of menstruation with this baby because he was interested in playing with siblings and grandparents.

I would encourage any mother who is interested in natural child spacing to consider following all the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding and not drop that Fifth Standard of taking the daily nap with your nursing baby.

Comment from the mother of these surveys: “I’m grateful to have had your books available.  I re-read them to troubleshoot, which is how I knew to start napping again. You made a real difference in our lives. Thank you.”

Sheila Kippley
Author: The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding



Natural Family Planning and Response to a Dissenter

Sunday, May 19th, 2019

I was theologically active at the time of Humanae Vitae.  I examined the arguments offered by the dissenting theologians.  I found them so inadequate that I wrote a book defending the received teaching and criticizing the dissenters’ arguments.  For its second edition I retitled it as “Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant.”  It was that edition that found its way into the hands of Kimberly and Scott Hahn when they were students in a Protestant seminary.  It helped persuade them of the truth of the received teaching affirmed by Humanae Vitae, and such acceptance was a step towards their entry into full communion with the Catholic Church.  An expanded version is now published as “Sex and the Marriage Covenant” by Ignatius.  In March 1971, the generally liberal journal Theological Studies published my article “Continued Dissent: Is It Responsible Loyalty?” in which I showed that the decision-making principles of arch-dissenter Fr. Charles Curran could not say NO even to spouse-swapping.  To the best of my knowledge, no one ever accused me of making a “straw-man” argument.

I suggest that you read those things before you waste lots of time and effort trying to support the dissenting position, a position that is unsupportable except in the context of situation ethics which is incompatible with Christian discipleship.

The only thing really surprising in Humanae Vitae is an amazing omission in Section 17 which deals with the consequences of the societal acceptance of unnatural forms of birth control.  In 1930 when the Anglican bishops were debating birth control, their conservatives pointed out that the acceptance of marital contraception would logically entail the acceptance of sodomy.  Not only were they correct, but today the Anglicans accept as bishops those who are openly involved in the practice of sodomy and calling it marriage.  I regret that Pope Paul VI did not include this important bit of history.

At our website you can find lots more to support Humanae Vitae and to uphold the dignity of women as mothers.  Nowhere else will you find so much support for the kind of breastfeeding that actually DOES naturally postpone the return of fertility.  We have to call it “Ecological Breastfeeding” to distinguish if from the styles of breastfeeding that have little or no effect on the return of fertility.

Future historians will record Humanae Vitae as a bright spot in Catholic history.

John Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant

Natural Family Planning and the DDP Standards

Sunday, May 5th, 2019

The USCCB Diocesan Development Plan has certain standards for teaching natural family planning. Below is John’s writing on the need to have the DDP Standards modified to include Ecological Breastfeeding and the merits of breastfeeding. Below are his written concerns to the director of the DDP.

1.  The Standards need to recognize that there are two distinct form of birth spacing—Ecological Breastfeeding and Systematic NFP.  The current definition of NFP does not include Ecological Breastfeeding, and thus it does not correspond to the full reality.

2.  In addition, the current Standard dealing with breastfeeding deals with it more as a charting problem than something to be encouraged and as the healthiest form of baby care.  Not only teachers but every client should know the tremendous health benefits of breastfeeding AND that the frequency of Ecological Breastfeeding actually DOES act as an abstinence-free  natural baby spacer.

I am convinced that the Church has a responsibility to share in the public health effort to increase breastfeeding of any sort and secondly to extend its duration.  The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently came out with another effort to promoted breastfeeding.  Also, a recent Dutch journal dealing with lung health opposed formula-feeding strongly for families with a history of asthma.  It speculated whether formula should be by prescription-only for such families.

And, if the Church has a responsibility to inform its members about the health benefits of breastfeeding, where can that be done better than in pre-marriage preparation and especially within a required NFP course?

John F. Kippley