The Edge

Natural Family Planning: The Purpose of NFP Instruction

February 7th, 2008 by John F. Kippley Print This Article Print This Article ·

What is the primary reason for Catholic Church interest in Natural Family Planning?

Is it health?  Certainly NFP in all its forms is health-promoting in several different ways.  Ecological breastfeeding provides the best nutrition for the baby for a longer time than any other form of breastfeeding, and its resulting extended amenorrhea, 14 to 15 months on the average, offers several health advantages to mothers as well.  Monitoring their fertility can help women become aware of potential health problems well before they become acute.  Further, the use of NFP spares couples the unhealthy side effects of many unnatural forms of birth control.  For these reasons alone, the basics of ecological breastfeeding and systematic fertility awareness should be taught in the appropriate health classes at every level of education.  For example, my wife Sheila taught ecological breastfeeding to a group of seventh grade girls in the parish where we started the Couple to Couple League.  Health, however, while a great human value, is also a secular value, and the negative reaction to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae in 1968 certainly was not concerned about health issues.  Further, the absence of NFP instruction in the health courses of Catholic colleges, high schools, and parishes is a pretty good indication that the promotion of good health is not the primary reason for the Catholic Church's interest in natural family planning. 

How about effectiveness?  In February 2007, a German study demonstrated a 99.6% effectiveness of the Sympto-Thermal Method of NFP.  Again, effectiveness is a human and secular value, and only a few have criticized the Church's promotion of NFP because it is so highly effective in avoiding pregnancy.  On the other hand, not a few have complained that some forms of NFP have not been as effective as that German study indicates.  Lastly, in Humanae Vitae the practice of NFP is not promoted on the grounds of high effectiveness even though prior to its publication there were European studies showing a 99% level of effectiveness. 

How about morality?  Certainly this is the reason that jumps out at us as we look at the teaching documents of the Church.  Pope Pius XI taught us in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (On Chaste Marriage) that contraception "is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin" (par. 56).  Pope Paul VI reminded us in Humanae Vitae that contraceptive behaviors are "intrinsically dishonest" (n. 14).  Pope John Paul II placed the issue squarely as a matter of truth.  "The moral norm, constantly taught by the Church in this sphere, and recalled and reconfirmed by Paul VI in his encyclical, arises from the reading of the language of the body in truth" (July 11, 1984).  Nor did he stop with the last of the Theology of the Body lectures in September 1984.  In April 1986, he told the participants in a conference on moral theology that denying the doctrine of marital non-contraception is "equivalent to denying the Catholic concept of revelation."  In March 1988, he reminded the participants in a conference on responsible procreation that the teaching of Humanae Vitae "belongs to the permanent patrimony of the Church's moral doctrine."  

There can be no doubt that the Church promotes NFP as a way of providing practical help to live out the demands of chaste love in marriage.

And yet I think there is more.  In the publication of The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan, we get a clue from the title of Part Two: "Life according to the Spirit."  As Christians, we are called to live according to the Spirit of God.  To put it briefly, the primary mission of the teaching Church is to evangelize the world, and that includes its own members.

Evangelization, then, is what I think is or should be the prime impetus behind the conscious efforts of the Church to promote and teach natural family planning.  The Gospel of Mark shows us that Jesus began his public teaching with a great summary of all that would follow.  "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe the Gospel."  The fuller translation of "repent" is "have a change of heart," and believing in the Gospel is more than a purely intellectual acceptance of the teachings of Christ.  It is also a trusting faith.  To paraphrase a part of the Sermon on the Mount, "Don't be anxious about the material things of life.  God knows you need these things.  Sure, you need to work, but seek first the kingdom of God and do His will and trust Him to take care of the rest of these things."

The teaching of Christ as it comes to us through the Church calls married couples to authentic love.  We all know that.  And we have heard many times from the First Letter of St. John that "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear."  What about the opposite?  Can something close to perfect fear cast out love?  Why do some couples refuse to accept the teaching of the Church regarding marital love?  Isn't it fear?  Specifically, isn't it fear that another child in the family might bring anything from inconvenience to real hardship?  And isn't there a fear either to accept the discipline and self-control involved in systematic NFP or a fear of an unplanned pregnancy?  In short, isn't it a fear to have that change of heart that Jesus calls for, a change of heart that involves carrying the daily cross of self-control and trusting God and not just ourselves?  And isn't a prime task of the Church to help its members to undergo that change of heart that allows real trust and casts out fear?

Call me crazy if you will, but I think the teaching Church should welcome the task of promoting and teaching NFP as a way to carry out its mission of evangelization in a very practical way.  After all, what other moral teachings of the Church affect so closely the lives of its adult members on a day-to-day basis?  As such, the Church should make sure that the NFP programs that operate under its umbrella are not just teaching anatomy but are consciously helping to carry out this mission.  That means that we who teach NFP have to learn and use the biblical language of evangelization — conversion and discipleship, faith and trust, hope and love, sin and repentance, prayer and fasting, Jesus as the Lord of lords and the King of kings.  We who teach natural family planning are blessed with the opportunity to share in the evangelization mission of the Church.  We need to thank God for this opportunity and do what we can to fulfill this responsibility.

John F. Kippley and his wife, Sheila, have raised five children. Since 1969 they have been active in promoting and teaching natural family planning and Catholic doctrine related to sexuality and NFP. John F. Kippley is the author of Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius) and Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, online at www.nfpandmore.org.




  • Guest

    teaching children / young girls about their cycles is one thing, teaching them ecological breastfeeding is outrageous

    parents should not put up with you doing that, it is the parents duty to teach their girls if they want to – NOT YOURS

    i do think the Church has an obligation to make this information more known to people, esp because many women have endometriosis and other health issues which can be helped by the use of natural progesterone – but as far as children go, it should be hands off

  • Guest

    I am truly confused about why teaching about ecological breastfeeding would be problematic. If you can teach them about their cycles (including I assume when and why ovulation takes place and the symptoms of ovulation) why would teaching about breastfeeding be a problem. The only thing one would teach would be that extended breastfeeding, and using no bottles or pacifiers along with no solid foods for the first 6 months tends to delay the return of fertility. It shouldn't scandalize any teenager to learn those facts. It certainly isn't going to encourage them to go out and fornicate in order to test the theory out. It would seem to me that providing even the most basic information about cycles would be just as likely to encourage them to do that.

    Breastfeeding is the natural means of feeding a human infant. There is nothing scandalous about it. To explain that exclusive breastfeeding frequently has the additional impact of spacing babies further apart doesn't seem like it is endangering anyone's innocence, any more than explaining that the reason that one has cycles in the first place is because the body is preparing for a possible pregnancy.

    Of course my kids learned about lactation, pregnancy, ovulation etc. very early because of raising cats, sheep, and horses. Biological facts did not cause a loss of innocence nor encourage fornication.

    I truly wish I'd known more basic facts as a teenager, I would have worried a whole lot less about some perfectly normal symptoms of ovulation.

    I just don't understand the objections.

  • Guest

    teaching children / young girls about their cycles is one thing, teaching them ecological breastfeeding is outrageous

    Again I am reminded of a comment in these fora from not too long ago, pertaining to a certain Padre Pio, who seems to have been a well-respected confessor and of whom it is said he was both chaste and morally upright. One day, upon leaving the confessional, he spied a mother feeding her child at the breast. Seeing this outrageous behavior, he walked up to the child and remarked, "Eat well, little one."

    Let us not fall into the singularly puritanical error of equating feeding at the breast with sexually charged license. Indeed, the larger shame is that more mothers do not feed their children in public – and especially in Church. Such should, of course, be modestly done, but both outrage and shame at this behavior is nothing less than a scandal.

    To which I must append: thank you Mr. Kippley for your insights. A woman's breasts are not sex-toys. They are holy matter from which babies receive, as if manna, their holy food.

  • Guest

    NFPdad, please email me, mkochan@newcesite.com

    Thanks,

    Mary

  • Guest

    I support NFP.  Although it is important to remember you can get pregnant when you are strictly breastfeeding as I did b/c some do in fact get their period.  I know others this happened to as well.  Also it is more challenging when you have an irregular cylcle.  As I said I fully still support NFP.  Thanks and God Bless!

  • Guest

    As a CCL NFP teacher, I concur with Mr Kippley's theory:

    Evangelization, then, is what I think is or should be the prime impetus behind the conscious efforts of the Church to promote and teach natural family planning.

    In my experience, couples grow in holiness through the learning and use of NFP regardless of their initial motivation for taking the course. They frequently become "reverts". Also, once couples entrust their very bodies to the will of God as expressed through the magisterium, all teachings become acceptable.

    The high divorce rate, which consists almost entirely of contracepting couples shows that unchaste marriages don't lead necessarily to longevity in marriage. In fact, disobedience in one area very often leads to disobedience in another. (ergo in this context, adultery is an easy next step for those who contracept.)

    I believe this follows Jesus' teaching that, "to those who have, more will be given and those who have not, even the little they do have will be taken" (obviously a poor paraphrase.)

    As a technical note, some are now referring to NFP as "responsible parenthood through the use of Fertility Awareness." In other words, NFP is the prudential application of Fertility Awareness.  I personally like this definition because many people I know have never used systematic abstinence to avoid pregnancy but are well schooled in Fertility Awareness. With the definition I used, they can also be rightly considered NFP users. Therefore, I, with 11 kids, am part of an NFP practicing couple.

    "Go out and spread the Good News!"

    http://www.nfpandmore.org/ can give you plenty of great information about NFP and where to go to learn Fertility Awareness in your area.

  • Guest

    Mr. Kippley,

    Blessings upon you for you and your wife's dedication over the years for what often I have seen as an unappreciated job. I have been practicing the Creighton Model of NFP (see  http://www.canfp.org ) my whole married life of 15 1/2 years.

    I still find it hard to believe after all this time, that along with the NFP method that you teach, you still insist that ecological breastfeeding to space children, works for most women. That has not been my experience for me or for my friends. It has worked beautifully for 1 friend, lucky her! So I do think it is outrageous to teach anyone that it does work! Thankfully I have been able to breastfeed all 4 of my children, although my cycles would always quickly come right back. (2 1/2 months post-partum)

    A lot of people say NFP doesn’t work and yet then I find out they weren’t actually following the instructions and that’s why it didn’t work…although sometimes because of health problems NFP really doesn’t  work due to lack of fertile signs and then only heroic abstinence works.

    But in the case of “ecological breastfeeding”, even without “bottles or pacifiers along with no solid foods for the first 6 months” and all the other things needed to technically be trying to do this “ecological” breastfeeding, it doesn’t work. I was glad to hear that the new versions of CCL teaching methods do NOT include this incorrect teaching. Let’s stick to what scientifically really works. NFP works for most people, child spacing by nursing rarely works. Abstinence always works.

  • Guest

    Our second baby is due this May.  We do not plan to shield our first from how their younger brother or sister will eat.  It's like bread from Heaven, containing in it ALL sweetness.  Breastfeeding is a natural, selfless act.  Praise God for moms.  Is it any wonder that Mary is the mother of the Church? The more we teach our children now, the stronger they will be when the world starts trying to trick them.  Thank you moms for helping us to raise the saints of tomorrow.

  • Guest

    I am not sure the word "incorrect" can be applied to the ecological breastfeeding and childspacing teaching/information.  Studies that were listed in the 4th Art of NFP showed the very good "baby spacing" effect of breastfeeding.

    I am by no means a scientist, but I do know a few things about biology in generaly and fertility.  As I recall, most of the studies that show a good correlation between amenorhea were done on populations that do not have the access to the nutrition that we in the US (and some other Western countries) currently have (say, in the last 20 or so years).   We are REALLY REALLY well feed in this country, and that probably impacts on our fertility rates. 

    The additional nutrition may "overwhelm" the fertility suppressing mechanism of ecological breastfeeding.  It is just a thought.  I am not sure if anyone has done current studies on this.

  • Guest

    Here is a link to a World Health Organization article on the child spacing benefits of breastfeeding.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2289298

     

    There is no firm data because the issue is not well tracked.  I participated in a study about 8 years ago where I had to input into a small calculator the duration of every nursing session, supplement use, pacifier use, separation from baby…I also had to give weekly urine samples.  When I saw fertility signs returning I had to track them and take daily samples…all in an effort to track the correlation between breastfeeding patterns and the return of fertility.  The same study was being conducted in the Camaroones.  Of course I was strictly a volunteer.  The entire study was practically unfunded by the US gov.  (whereas studies having to do with anything that makes money gets funds.)  I may be cynical, but if breastfeeding generated income for anybody but a few bra makers, and it had to do with a target group other than women and children, we'd know a heck of a lot more about it.  Also, anecdotes aren't statistically relevant.

    All I  can say regarding breastfeeding ammenorhea is this:  while nursing, practice fertility awareness and act accordingly…all the same "rules" apply. 

  • Guest

    Thank you Mr. Kippley, along with your amazing wife, for continuing your work.  When I first read her book, "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing" back in the early 90s, my initial reaction was , sorry to say, that she was off her rocker.  It was probably fear though. I just couldn't believe that anyone would be able to (or want to) mother the way Sheila Kippley described and all of my examples of mothering came from modern American culture.  Thankfully, after two typical hospital births, our third child was born with a midwife in a free standing birth center.  The midwife there set me straight on exclusive breastfeeding.  It wasn't ecological breastfeeding but it was still wonderful! 

    My beliefs about the Church were challenged during that pregnancy and that challenge led me to a CCLI class.  I'm glad the organization took such a pro-breastfeeding stand back then!  The domino effect of embracing the Church's teaching on family planning led me to fully embrace the faith and become a better mother to the four children that have come since then :-)

    Despite being in a marriage that the Church refers to as disparity of cult , through the grace of God, I've grown in my Catholic faith and have had my husband support the children's Catholic formation in his own way. The Kippley's insight into the Church's teaching on child spacing has been instrumental in the success of our marriage and for that I am grateful beyond words! Talk about evangelization!

    mom to seven age 18 to 13 months

  • Guest

    Elkabrikir, you are so right!  The commercial formula companies discourage breastfeeding so they can profit from its limited presence in our culture.  Formula has its place, for sure (such as in my situation), but breastfeeding is the ideal, and it's a shame that it has taken the back burner.

  • Guest

    Thank you for a wonderful article :-)   The Kippleys helped shape my marriage and my parenting!

    I think the confusion about breastfeeding and child spacing comes down to a misunderstanding between exclusive breastfeeding and ecological breastfeeding.  While I've met many women who practiced exclusive breastfeeding, I've not met anyone who actually followed the 7 standards of ecological breastfeeding with all her children.

    Personally, I ecologically breastfed my first 3 children with my fertility returning between 11 and 15 months post-partum.  The fourth liked to sleep for about 6 straight hours at night, and since she wasn't one of my lean kiddoes, I let her sleep from time to time.  I also let her nap without me during the day.  With this child, my fertility returned 5 months postpartum.  By the time our youngest came along, I had plenty of volunteers who wanted to hold and cuddle our sweet miracle so the breast wasn't necessarily the first thing to be offered ;-)

    Beate – learning at home with:
    dd 9/94, dd 6/96, ds 5/99, dd 3/02, and dd 2/04 plus mom to 3 in God's care

  • Guest

    Many thanks for your comments.  My first response was interrupted. 

    I think the initial objection was pretty well answered.  The Church is behind the US Government in promoting breastfeeding, and that's not good.  The Church should be in the forefront.  Pope Pius XII took time out from his busy wartime duties in 1941 to urge mothers to breastfeed their children if at all possible.  He was apparently even more concerned about the psychological benefits than the physiological benefits.  Pope John Paul II co-sponsored a conference on breastfeeding in 1995 at which he endorsed the statements of some international health organizations urging moms to breastfeed for two years.  If girls are going to learn about menstruation in Catholic schools, they should certainly learn about God's own plan for feeding babies and spacing them.

    Elizabeth B thinks it is "outrageous to teach anyone that it [ecological breastfeeding] does work."  I'm happy to reply to Elizabeth that it would be highly dishonest of us to say that it does not work.  As with any form of natural family planning, we do not claim 100%.  In 1988 a group of scientists met in Bellagio, Italy and formulated what is now called the Bellagio consensus.  On the basis of research, they stated that "exclusive breastfeeding" for the first 6 months postpartum is 98 to 99% effective in postponing the return of fertility during amenorrhea.  And "exclusive breastfeeding" does not have the duration of effectiveness that "ecological breastfeeding" has. 

    Tednkate speculate that maybe well-fed American mothers don't have the same extent of breastfeeding infertility as moms in primitive and/or developing countries.  That's been a matter of speculation for years.  In his several studies, Dr. Bill Taylor (PhD in engineering) looked for but did find that to be so.

    Perhaps the best answer to that is that our studies were done with American mothers with the possible addition of a few from well-fed Canada.  In 1972 Sheila's work was published in the JOGN Journal.  It was not anecdotal.  In 1986 we repeated that study with a larger group.  The methodology was clearly laid out.  The average duration of breastfeeding amenorrhea in these studies was 14.6 and 14.5 months respectively.  Dr. Taylor found a median of 15.9 months with eco-breastfeeding.  We also reported on something that made it clear that there is a wide range of experience.  Approximately 70 percent of the mothers experience their first period between 9 and 20 months.  And there were a few before 9 months. 

    Our studies are at our website, http://www.NFPandmore.org.

    Elkabrikir commented on the Dr. Taylor's technologically advanced transcultural study that included mothers in the States and in Cameroon. 

    It is important to realize that there is a huge difference between "cultural breastfeeding" and "ecological breastfeeding."  The former has little effect on the return of fertility.  "Ecological breastfeeding" is not just a wish-and-a-prayer concept.  It is based on the "Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding."  There may be an exception, but in every case that we have had the opportunity to make inquiry, the "it didn't work" complaint came from mothers who were not following the Seven Standards. 

    The medical "standard of care" for babies is to provide them with exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months.  The AAP and the AAFP urge moms to breastfeed for at least 12 months, and the WHO and UNICEF urge breastfeeding for at least two years.  With a little more education and effort, many, many moms will have the extra blessings of full ecological breastfeeding.  If they learn it directly from the Church or through a church-related organization, many will be very grateful.

    Regarding "outrageous behavior," I submit this which came to my attention in just the last couple of weeks.  An NFP teacher encouraged a mom to stop breastfeeding so that the mom could learn her mucus signs more easily.  And that teacher had supposedly great credentials. 

    Interested parties can find helpful how-to-do-it ecological breastfeeding information in Part Three of our online manual.  At our home page http://www.NFPandmore.org , click on the NFP How To manual. 

    And let us all pray that our bishops and priests will recognize the need to preach and teach Humanae Vitae and full NFP as part of parish evangelization.

    John Kippley

  • Guest

    Thank you Mr. Kippley for your life long work with NFP.  My husband and I took the CCL class during our engagement and have used NFP only throughout our 12.5 years of marriage.  I have been grateful for Shelia Kippley's work on extended breastfeeding ammenorhea too.  I was glad our NFP class touched on breastfeeding and the benefits to baby and mom because my then future husband was against BF.  His problem was created by his mother's influence.  My mother in-law didn't BF or even know anyone who did back in the 50's and 60's.  Needless to say, I've had a few interesting encounters with her regarding this issue and after 10 years of mothering this way, I think that she has seen the light.  Or at least accepted my choice and perhaps understands some of the whys. 

    I am frequently surprised with the "heat" that certain subjects generate in these comment sections.  BF doesn't promise you an easy road with no cares about your fertility.  You still have to pay attention to your body.  I think one of the 7 Standards that is frequently overlooked is rest or a daily nap with baby.  Moms are so busy running here and there that there is little time to just sit and nurse baby or actually lay down for a rest.  My own fertility returned earlier with my first baby (8mos.) and then stretched out to 14 mos. with my second and third babies.  My fourth was around 1 year.  I probably wasn't resting as much with my first baby and by my fourth rest was only wishful thinking.  When I was able to rest with my 2 middle babies, my body responded with extended ammenorhea.  Thank you for your work Mr. and Mrs. Kippley!

  • Guest

    Dear Elizabeth,

    I'm a CCL NFP teacher and have been so for 6 years.  I also have been practicing this method of NFP for 14 years.  I've nursed all my babies and my own fertility has always returned sooner than what is expected for ecologically breastfeeding mothers.  It is clear that you haven't taken our method of NFP because we teach couples how to monitor their own return of fertility when breastfeeding.    This method DOES work and it works well!!!  I've also been trained in Hilgers "Creighton" method for my own personal reasons.  I do understand why you would find this hard to believe that you can monitor  your fertility and NOT get pregnant when breastfeeding.

    God made us women to be complicated, yet wonderful and that includes our fertility!  Don't be afraid!   I haven't met any couples yet who said that ecological breastfeeding rarely works.  Everyone I know who's been instructed properly knows exactly how it works.

    May God Bless You!

  • Guest

    I learned about breastfeeding from La Leche League meetings right after my first child was born in 1983.  It was there that I checked out Sheila Kippley's book to read: "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing".  I recall thinking, "This  idea is so wonderful; I wonder if anyone ever does this."  I recall my further amazement, when months later, I was still ecologically breastfeeding, and wound up going l4 months without cycles.  This reliable information prompted me to learn NFP from the Kippleys, and practice it for 24 years.  I still chart at age 50 and eco-breastfed all 7 of my children, following all 7 standards. 

      I was a registered nurse and couldn't figure out why this excellent breastfeeding information wasn't at doctor offices or in nursing schools or in childbirth classes, school health classes, etcetera.  It has always been taught by the Kippleys that the eco-breastfeeding can space babies for some, but not all.  I did follow the seven standards and did have the expected results myself, but always tell others it may not be so for them. I still attend La Leche meetings and still meet women who go months w/o cycles while breastfeeding; one single mother about six months ago asked me if it was normal to still have no cycles at 18 months post-baby.  I could tell her "yes".

    Regarding the comment by the Creighton-NFP woman, since this method does not chart temperatures, it could be the situation where women are having 'bleeds' but NOT ovulating…I have seen this on several symptothermal breastfeeding charts where they are bleeding but not ovulating. This is from the presence of BFeeding hormones, and charting more would give more data. You may indeed have had breastfeeding child spacing effects and are interpreting it wrong; although I know that some do have cycles come back.

  • Guest

    I have successfully used ecological breastfeeding to space my children 3 years apart. I went 21 months without menstruating after my first was born and then 25 months after the second child. I got pregnant probably about 26-27 months after the third was born with no menstruation beforehand. I personally know other women who have had no menstruation for 15-18 months while practicing ecological breastfeeding.

    Just like with NFP, ecological breastfeeding is not 100% effective in delaying pregnancy. There will be exceptions. Also, some women are not following all of the 7 standards so that may be why their periods return quickly.

    I don't find ecological breastfeeding to be burdensome at all. I just follow my baby's lead with regards to nursing and practice bedsharing. I do realize that some women have larger breast capacities so they may not need to nurse their babies as often. This can affect the spacing effect of breastfeeding. Also some babies sleep long periods at night and this also affects fertility.

     

     

  • Guest

    Dear Mr. Kippley,

    Thank you for your years of service in promoting and teaching NFP, including ecological breastfeeding. I was a convert to Catholicism in the late 1970's when there existed precious little in the way of solid Catholic teaching. Your faithful, uncompromising witness made you and Sheila two of my most formative teachers.

    I was fortunate enough to be a participant in Dr. Bill Taylor's 1986 study. I still feel blessed to have been able to contribute. I was on the "shy" side of mothers in that study. With all four of my ecologically-breastfed children, my cycles returned when my babies were about 12 months old.

    Over time, I learned NOT to say, "You can't get pregnant when you're breastfeeding." I learned to instead say, "I practice Natural Family Planning, and have found that breastfeeding gives me an extended period of infertility." I highly recommend similar language to all ecologically breastfeeding moms.

    God bless you, Sheila and all of the Couple to Couple League for being so formative in my life. Without you, I would never have learned the truth of God's plan for married couples.

  • Guest

     

    Thanks Mr.  & Mrs.Kippley for "birthing" this movement. You were the only resource I had regarding breast feeding and its effect on child spacing. (I thought I was not functioning properly when my cycles didn't return for a year after the first child!  My doctors didn't tell me otherwise and gave me provera to get me going!  Imagine that!)

    I've ecologically breastfed 11 babies, including a newborn currently.  I had a return of fertility w/in the statistical norms (around 14 months). My kids are all a tad less than 2 years apart.  You're right guitarmom.  You can conceive while bf…I've done it 10 times.  However, I always new about my fertility while nursing thanks to NFP.    l like your language regarding ecological bf too.

  • Guest

    I can't believe that doctor put you on Provera!  That is so irresponsible.  Thank God for NFP doctors.  I wish there were some in my area.

  • Guest

    Elizabeth B. says, "I was glad to hear that the new versions of CCL teaching methods do NOT include this incorrect teaching." This is not true. Although the way breastfeeding is presented in the context of fertility has changed, we have not abandoned teaching couples about the benefits of breastfeeding, not only in the context of fertility, but the numerous other benefits, as well. The "triple strand" approach of STM method, breastfeeding, and morality, are still the basis of CCL's teaching. Imagine the furor if someone on this thread said "When will Dr. Hilgers abandon his incorrect understanding of using temperatures?" I'd like to think we have gotten past this "my method's better than your method" mentality. NFP is a gift, and we should all be grateful for how we have received that gift.

  • Guest

    In response to NFPMom of 4, something more has to be said. CCL calls their new “triple strand” an EXTREME MAKEOVER in their media report.  EXTREME it is.  Almost everything we brought to the Couple to Couple League in 1971 has been dropped or changed. 

     

    Ecological breastfeeding had been dropped.  In fact, CCL now states that breastfeeding IS NOT a form of NFP.  The covenant theology of marital sexuality has been dropped.  The STM has been changed.  CCL uses promotional words like “streamlined” to promote their one-rule method.  But that is not accurate.  Their new STM actually involves 3 rules.  They have dropped two fertility awareness signs in their regular course, signs that have been most helpful to women.

      

    CCL’s theology has been criticized.  See John’s 8 blogs on their publication, The Human Body and reviews of the “CCL Student Guide” at our website.  In fact, we have many blogs on the new changes at CCL.  See right sidebar of blogs (upper right corner) of Home Page, http://www.nfpandmore.org .

     

    Yes, CCL still talks about the health benefits of breastfeeding, but why?  That is, do people come to an NFP class for general health reasons or to learn natural ways to space their babies? 

    And yes, CCL mentions the infertility associated with exclusive breastfeeding, but they describe it in such a way that couples who act upon their description could very well experience unintended pregnancies.  To put it bluntly, CCL has a serious mistake in its new manual, The Art of NFP: Student Guide.  This mistake was blogged November 18, 2007 by three bloggers, including one who was the researcher involved with many of the studies on “exclusive breastfeeding.”  CCL failed to mention the requirement necessary to insure natural infertility for the exclusive breastfeeding mother, namely the absence of menstruation.  Yet, to this day, as far as we know, CCL has refused to insert a correction sheet in their new manual.  We feel CCL’s statement and CCL’s description of exclusive breastfeeding without the required amenorrhea could lead to unintended pregnancies (p. 161, p. 254).  CCL also could have given a better definition for “exclusive breastfeeding.”  Nowhere do they say, “nothing but mother’s milk” or “no solids, no other liquids” (p. 154).  When teaching any rules, we must be accurate. 

     

    The original, full STM and the Seven Standards of Eco-breastfeeding are still being taught through NFP International.  Their classes have been approved by the archdiocese of Denver.  NFPI is on the approved USCCB website as a Home Study program.  Other classes have started in Texas and Ohio.  Others have expressed interest in teaching with NFPI.  We have had over 100 countries visit our website last year.  Most come to download our online NFP manual (website above).  The manual is free, short (84 pages), easy to understand, and covers everything a couple needs to learn STM or ecological breastfeeding.  Free charts are also available at the Home Page.  This will be improved in a few months.

     

     The old “triple strand” was solid and helpful to many couples.  It is our hope that through NFP International it will continue to be of help to many and to the Church.

     

    Sheila Kippley

    Breastfeeding and Natural Child SpacingBreastfeeding and Catholic MotherhoodNFP: The Question-Answer Book at http://www.nfpandmore.org  

  • Guest

     I agree with Sheila…CCL's changes saddened me…I can no longer recommend CCL.  It is absurd to me to say that: "Sometimes eco-breastfeeding does not work, so let us not teach it."  Do we say that, "Sometimes NFP does not work to avoid pregnancy, so let us not teach it?"  Being instructors in the medical field, we have an obligation to teach ALL that there is known in science so that couples can make an informed decision.  NFPI does this the best, and we are blessed to work with them.  God will  also bless their efforts–even if it is in hidden ways…God will know and the couples will have peace.

  • Guest

    In response to jubilee, where does CCLI say "sometimes eco-bf does not work so let's not teach it"?  And I would be curious to know from Sheila Kippley what "2 fertility signs have been dropped from the new CCL course."  I am currently in retraining for CCL and am not aware of either of these things.

    I will continue to recommend CCL and I love the new look. 

  • Guest

    The comment by “jubilee” is a paraphrase based on comments from CCL.  According to CCL spokespersons at the CCL Convention 2006, the high/low of the cervix and the internal mucus exam would not be taught in the new CCL course. 

    1.      The new CCL manual teaches only two changes in the cervix.  As foretold in 2006, the high-low change in the cervix has been omitted.    

    2.      The internal mucus exam is not part of the regular CCL NFP course but is placed at the back of the manual.  There is no separate row for internal mucus observations on the new chart.  So I think it is fair to say that it has been dropped with regard to the active teaching program. 

     

    With regard to eco-breastfeeding, CCL states that “many couples” find “their fertility comes back sooner than they were led to believe it would.”  Then CCL quotes from a couple who said they were misled by natural spacing by breastfeeding.  CCL said they “hear similar comments and frustrations frequently.”  (email to CCL volunteers, May 18, 2007).   That communication also noted that CCL will “not refer to breastfeeding as a ‘form of NFP.’”  Couple those comments with the fact that eco-breastfeeding has been dropped, and what Jubilee said seems to be a realistic interpretative paraphrase. 

    Sheila

  • Guest

    Is this forum really the correct place to fight out the apparently hostile takeover of CCLI?  Is the purpose of this article to explain why we teach NFP or is it an advertisement for NFPI and a forum to bash CCLI?

    Has CCLI been asked to rebut any of the negative statements regarding its new program on this website?

    8.5 years ago when I was certified by CCL, many of the prospective teaching couples thought the program needed updating in teaching methodology and in its marketing approach.  Also, Theology of the Body was just being promulgated, therefore it hadn't been included yet in the program.  

    It is hard to see your baby grow up.  Seeing this battle being waged between NFP providers disgusts me.  The entire issue of NFP is irrelevant to a HUGE majority of Catholics.  This infighting will only turn the folks in the pews off even more than they already are by Humanae Vitae. 

    I have always felt like the sin of pride has reared its head among the various methods of NFP providers. (funny enough I created my own NFP symbols and charts and used them for almost ten years before I ever heard of CCL or Creighton.  I have the yellowed legal tablets to prove it!)  Are we disciples of John and Sheila or Creighton or CCLi or NFPI?  Did they die for us on the cross? 

    Is this what John Kippley meant by evangelizing the world to Christ through the teaching of NFP? 

  • Guest

    If there was a "hostile takeover" as you put it, then that is a much different scenario from someone merely having trouble dealing with your "baby grow up" analogy, isn't it?  I don't see how you reconcile the two.

  • Guest

    Mary,

    If there was a hostile takeover (and I don't know anything about anything and was shocked when somebody suggested that to me)perhaps it was because the Kippleys couldn't face their "baby growing up" and modernize with it.

    Maybe the new board thought the organization was being marginalized and would seek to lose its relevance along with any sort of voice in society. Like I said, many of us thought it needed to be updated in how the material was presented, in its approach to marketing, and how new teachers were brought on board.

    At the time the Kippleys retired, foolish me, thought they actually were retiring. I had no idea it had gotten ugly at CCL; and, frankly, I'm shocked. I wouldn't have known there was a problem either except that several weeks ago I stumbled upon the Kippley's new web site.

    I truly believe that the Kippleys think the movement has been badly damaged by the turn CCL has taken. If I had started the organization I would feel betrayed too. That said, I personally think the movement has been helped by many of the changes implemented. I think the possibility now exists to reach more young couples than ever before. The new program is engaging and does teach the truth. Isn't there more than one way to spread the good news of Humanae Vitae and teach people how to live it?

    At this point I don't trust either CCL or NFPI or Creighton. They all seem to have an agengda that involves a cult of personality. Thankfully, one can learn the mechanics of fertility awareness by online reading…that's how I learned only I had paper and ink books as reference material.

    I hope this whole discussion bears fruit to the greater glory of God. He doesn't like to see his children bickering any more than we do.

  • Guest

    NFPMomof4 : a letter sent from CCL months ago to teaching couples(including me)  had this concept in it.  I  consequently see it, also, implemented in the "new" book.  I wonder what happened, that you, in retraining, did not receive it, or see it as such if you got it.

    elkabrikir: addressing error or injustice does not seem like bickering to me, for these cannot evangelize anyone

  • Guest

    I will be happy to respond to direct questions.  However, to issues such as ego-trips and trust, there is nothing I can say.

    John F. Kippley

  • Guest

    I loved the article by John Kippley !  I learned my natural family planning from CCL Ed and Virginia Mann.  Everyone involved is so gracious and caring.  Thank God I learned from them what I would never have learned from my parents.  God Bless CCL and thank you for the natural mothering and breastfeeding you taught me.  My life as well as my husband and children have been blessed.

  • Guest

    Regarding the changes in CCL's teaching, I will say this. My husband and I owe our openness to life from the start of our marriage to their "old" triple strand, specifically their teaching of eco-breastfeeding. Through learning that breastfeeding spaces babies (and it does; I have an 18.5-month old and no periods yet), we realized that God was asking us to be open to life from the start, rather than taking a few nice vacations before starting our family! Eco-breastfeeding helped us shape our philosophy as future parents, not "married singles" (as we see so often today). We realized that if we were not ready to have children, we were not ready to be married. And now we have a beautiful daughter who is the fruit of our love.

    By abandoning eco-breastfeeding, other young couples will not learn about this amazing way of mothering and spacing babies. In its attempt to be "relevant", the new CCL is merely catering to the culture we live in, instead of transforming it.