Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: jman123 on January 26, 2012, 05:10:24 PM
-
this is from Wikipedia. What do you think of these people and their beliefs?
I know that they are Protestants. What do you think?
Quiverfull is a movement among some conservative evangelical Christian couples chiefly in the United States, but with some adherents in Canada,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere.[2] It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God,[2][3][4] eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.[5][6] Adherents are known as "quiver full", "full quiver", "quiverfull-minded", or simply "QF" Christians. Some refer to the Quiverfull position as Providentialism,[7] while other sources have referred to it as a manifestation of natalism.[8][9] Currently several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement.[5] It began to receive significant attention in the U.S. national press in 2004.
Also see: History of Birth Control
Some of the beliefs held among Quiverfull adherents have been held among various Christians during prior eras of history. As birth control methods advanced during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many conservative Christian movements issued official statements against their use. Some contend that Quiverfull's 'internal growth' model is a manifestation of a broader trend reflected in such groups as the ultra-Orthodox Jєωs, Salafi Muslims, Orthodox Calvinists of Holland and Laestadian Lutherans of Finland.[10]
[edit]Anglican allowance of birth control and feminism
In 1930 the Lambeth Conference issued a statement permitting birth control "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method," but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles." Primary materials on the contemporary debate indicate a wide variety of opinion on the matter. Coinciding, a feminist movement that began about a decade earlier under American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood) founder Margaret Sanger emerged to advocate for modern birth control.[11][12] In the decades that followed, birth control became gradually accepted among Protestants, even among the most conservative evangelicals.[13][14][15][16]
[edit]Early Quiverfull authors
Mary Pride's first book, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism Back to Reality (1985), is credited as helping to spearhead the Quiverfull movement.
Main article: Mary Pride
Also see: Feminism, Anti-feminism, and Birth control
Within that context, Quiverfull as a modern Christian movement began to emerge.[17] While a newsletter by Nancy Campbell espoused Quiverfull ideas early, and Campbell is in measure responsible for formulating them, the movement sparked most fully after the 1985 publication of Mary Pride’s book The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality.
In her book, Pride chronicled her journey away from what she labeled feminist and anti-natal ideas of happiness, within which she had lived as an activist before her conversion to conservative evangelical Christianity in 1977, toward her discovery of happiness surrounding what she said was the biblically mandated role of wives and mothers as bearers of children and workers in the home under the authority of a husband. Pride wrote that such a lifestyle was generally biblically required of all married Christian women but that most Christian women had been unknowingly duped by feminism, especially in their acceptance of birth control.[16][18]
The Christian quiverfull movement derives its name from Psalm 127:3-5, where many children are metaphorically referred to as the arrows in a full quiver.
As the basis for her arguments, Pride selected numerous Bible verses to lay out what she felt was the biblical role of women. These included verses she saw as containing her ideas of childbearing and non-usage of birth control, which she argued were opposed to what she called "the feminist agenda" by which she had formerly lived. Pride's explanations became a spearheading basis of Quiverfull.
The name of the Quiverfull movement comes from the Old Testament Bible verses in Psalm 127:3-5 that Pride cited in The Way Home.[18]
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD:
and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man;
so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
they shall not be ashamed,
but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.KJV
Pride stated in her book, "The church’s sin which has caused us to become unsavory salt incapable of uplifting the society around us is selfishness, lack of love, refusing to consider children an unmitigated blessing. In a word, family planning."[18]
[edit]Consolidation and growth of the movement
After the publication of Pride’s The Way Home, various church women and others took up her book and ideas and spread them through informal social networks. Around this time, numerous church pastors issued sermons in accord with Pride's ideas and various small publications and a few Quiverfull-oriented books emerged.
As the Internet expanded several years later, the informal networks gradually took on more organized forms as Quiverfull adherents developed numerous Quiverfull-oriented organizations, books, listserves, websites, and digests, most notably The Quiverfull Digest. The largely decentralized "Quiverfull" movement resulted.[5][19]
From their onset, Quiverfull ideas have sometimes had a polarizing effect between Christians who hold to the position and those who are skeptical of or disagree with them.[16][20]
[edit]Motivations
[edit]Obedience to God
Quiverfull authors and adherents express their core motivation as a desire to obey God's commands as stated in the Bible. Among these commands, "be fruitful and multiply",[Gen 1:22;8:17;9:1] "behold, children are a gift of the Lord"),[Psalm 127:3] and passages showing God acting to open and close the womb[Gen 20:18;29:31;30:22][1Sam 1:5-6][Isaiah 66:9] are interpreted as giving basis for their view. Quiverfull adherents typically maintain that their philosophy is first about an open, accepting and obedient attitude toward the possibility of birthing children. Within the view, this attitude may result in many, few or even no children, because God Himself maintains sole provenance over conception and birth. The duty of the Quiverfull adherent is only to maintain an "open willingness" to joyfully receive and not thwart however many children God chooses to bestow. Contraception in all its forms is seen as inconsistent with this attitude and is thus entirely avoided, as is abortion.
[edit]Missionary effort
Quiverfull's principal authors and its adherents also describe their motivation as a missionary effort to raise up many Christian children to advance the cause of the Christian religion.[2] Its distinguishing viewpoint is to eagerly receive children as blessings from God,[2][4] eschewing all forms of contraception, including natural family planning and sterilization.[5][18]
[edit]Population and demography
According to journalist Kathryn Joyce, writing in the magazine The Nation: "[T]he Quiverfull mission is rooted in faith, the unseen, its mandate to be fruitful and multiply," even if it "has tangible results as well."[5] Although Joyce claims that "Population is a preoccupation for many Quiverfull believers... [and] [t]he motivations aren't always racist, but the subtext of "race ѕυιcιdє" is often there."[5] Still, she asserts, "This is what Quiverfull is about: faith, pure and simple."[5] Others remark that Quiverfull resembles other world-denying fundamentalist movements that grow through internal reproduction and membership retention such as ultra-Orthodox Jєωs, Amish, Laestadian Lutherans in Finland and Salafis in the Muslim world. Many are thriving as seculars and moderates have transitioned to below-replacement fertility. [21][22]
[edit]Beliefs
The cover of the 1990 A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ by Rick and Jan Hess.
The principal Quiverfull belief is that Christians should maintain a strongly welcoming attitude toward the possibility of bearing children. With minor exceptions, adherents reject birth control use as completely incompatible with this belief.
[edit]Majority doctrine
Most Quiverfull adherents regard children as unqualified blessings, gifts that should be received happily from God. Quiverfull authors Rick and Jan Hess argued for this belief in their 1990 book.
"Behold, children are a gift of the Lord." (Psa. 127:3) Do we really believe that? If children are a gift from God, let’s for the sake of argument ask ourselves what other gift or blessing from God we would reject. Money? Would we reject great wealth if God gave it? Not likely! How about good health? Many would say that a man’s health is his most treasured possession. But children? Even children given by God? "That’s different!" some will plead! All right, is it different? God states right here in no-nonsense language that children are gifts. Do we believe His Word to be true?[2]
Quiverfull authors such as Pride, Provan, and Hess extend this idea to mean that if one child is a blessing, then each additional child is likewise a blessing and not something to be viewed as economically burdensome or unaffordable. When a couple seeks to control family size via birth control they are thus "rejecting God's blessings" he might otherwise give and possibly breaking his commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".[2][18][23][24]
Charles D. Provan's 1989 The Bible and Birth Control is credited as strengthening the theological justification for the Quiverfull movement.
Accordingly, Quiverfull theology opposes the general acceptance among Protestant Christians of deliberately limiting family size or spacing children through birth control. For example, Mary Pride argued, "God commanded that sex be at least potentially fruitful (that is, not deliberately unfruitful).... All forms of sex that shy away from marital fruitfulness are perverted."[18] Adherents believe that God himself controls via Providence how many and how often children are conceived and born, pointing to Bible verses that describe God acting to "open and close the womb" (see Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:22; 1 Samuel 1:5-6; Isaiah 66:9).[2][25] Hess and Hess state that couples "just need to trust God to provide them with the perfect number of children for their situation."[2]
Some Quiverfull adherents base their rejection of birth control upon the belief that the Genesis creation and post-Noahic flood Bible passages to "be fruitful and multiply" (see Genesis 1:22; 9:7) are un-rescinded biblical commandments. For example, Charles D. Provan argues:
"Be fruitful and multiply" ... is a command of God, indeed the first command to a married couple. Birth control obviously involves disobedience to this command, for birth control attempts to prevent being fruitful and multiplying. Therefore birth control is wrong, because it involves disobedience to the Word of God. Nowhere is this command done away with in the entire Bible; therefore it still remains valid for us today.[23]
Quiverfull advocates such as Hess and Hess and Rachel Giove Scott believe that the Devil deceives Christian couples into using birth control so that children God otherwise willed to create are prevented from being born.[2][25] A Quiverfull adherent quoted in 1991 in the Calgary Herald made the statement: "Children are made in God's image, and the enemy hates that image, so the more of them he can prevent from being born, the more he likes it."[1]
[edit]Infertility
Adherents view barrenness, referred to as an "empty quiver" by adherents, as something to be accepted from God if that is His choice, while also making it a matter of prayer in the belief that God may wish to miraculously intervene. Quiverfull sees infertility treatments as a usurpation of God's providence and accordingly reject them. Adoption is viewed as a positive option in which couples also rely on God's providence to send children. Biblical references to God's love for the orphan and to the belief that people are saved through adoption into God's family are often noted.
Some circles do accept medical interventions, if they are not inherently abortifacient, since improving opportunities for pregnancy is not seen to guarantee it any more than with any healthy couple. Also, some reproductive health problems may be symptomatic of other health problems that need to be addressed generally.
[edit]Minority doctrine
Not all Quiverfull families and authors would agree with each statement made by the movement's principal authors.
Samuel Owens considers that some aspects of a fallen universe may possibly sometimes justify an option to use a non–potentially abortive birth control method. Example situations include serious illnesses, inevitable Caesarian sections, and other problematic situations, such as disabling mental instability and serious marital disharmony. Owens additionally argues that birth control may be permissible for married couples called to a "higher moral purpose" than having children, such as caring long-term for many orphans or serving as career missionaries in a dangerous location.[26]
Despite some variances, all Quiverfull families and authors agree that God's normative ideal for happy, healthy and prosperous married couples is to take no voluntary actions to prevent having children.[2][4]
[edit]Practices
[edit]Non-use of contraception
Also see: Fertility and Infertility, and Protestant views on contraception
Quiverfull adherents maintain that God "opens and closes the womb" of a woman on a case-by-case basis, and that attempts to regulate fertility are a subjugation of divine power. Thus, the defining practice of a Quiverfull married couple is not to use any form of birth control and to maintain continual "openness to children", to the possibility of conception, during routine sɛҳuąƖ intercourse irrespective of timing of the month during the ovulation cycle. This is considered by Quiverfull adherents to be a principal, if not the primary, aspect of their Christian calling in submission to the lordship of Christ.[27]
Some Quiverfull adherents advocate for child spacing through breastfeeding, so return of fertility after childbirth could be delayed by lactational amenorrhea, although this is far from certain.
[edit]Family organization, homeschooling, homesteading
Also see: Dominionism, and Patriarchy
Quiverfull authors and adherents advocate for and seek to model a return to Biblical Patriarchy.[citation needed] Mary Pride recently distanced herself from the patriarchy movement in an article for Practical Homeschooling. In her article, she clearly stated her disapproval of the movement, and sets the record straight that she should not be considered a founder of it.[28]
Quiverfull authors typically organize family governance with the mother as a homemaker under the authority of her husband with the children under the authority of both. Parents seek to largely shelter their children from aspects of culture they as parents deem adversarial to their religious beliefs. Additionally, Quiverfull families strongly incline toward homeschooling and toward homesteading in a rural area. However, exceptions exist in substantial enough proportion that these latter two items are general and often idealized correlates to Quiverfull practices and not integral parts of them.[29]
[edit]Sterilization reversals
Quiverfull adherents Brad and Dawn Irons run Blessed Arrows Sterilization Reversal Ministry. The couple advocates for Quiverfull ideas while providing funding, physician referrals, and support to Protestants wishing to undergo sterilization reversal surgery.[30] Protestants such as Bill Gothard also advocate for reversals, saying that sterilized couples have "cut off children" but should instead devote themselves to "raising up godly seed".
[edit]Criticisms
[edit]From Protestants
Jeffrey J. Meyers examines the biblical and theological arguments that Pride puts forth and carefully points out what he considers to be shortcomings of her interpretations.[31]
James B. Jordan maintains that, while children are indeed blessings, they are only one among a wide range of blessings God offers, and prayerfully choosing foci among them is part of prudent Christian stewardship.[32]
John Piper's Desiring God Ministries made some comments that relate to Quiverfull by saying that:
"just because something is a gift from the Lord does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive. As Wayne Grudem has said, 'it is okay to place less emphasis on some good activities in order to focus on other good activities.'"[33]
[edit]From feminists
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, mother by birth of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons,. . .pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle."[34] Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement," other than to distance themselves from the charges by explaining that the victims are aberrations.[35][36]
[edit]Quiverfull in U.S. national press
While Quiverfull had previously garnered some attention in the Christian press,[8][37] the Canadian press in March 2001,[1] and in various scholarly pieces, it began to receive focused attention in the U.S. national press in 2004.
[edit]New York Times
In an article on December 7, 2004, New York Times journalist David Brooks described a rising movement he called simply "natalism" and sought to show how in the future it could shift the U.S. political landscape from a philosophy of liberalism to conservatism. Brooks concluded, "Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad".[5][9]
[edit]ABC Good Morning America
On July 25, 2005, ABC Good Morning America segment, "Is eight really enough?" Deborah Roberts interviews Rachel Scott, author of "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors". Rachel Scott discusses the trend toward larger families, managing finances with more mouths to feed and she states, "when good people stop having kids, society fails."
[edit]ABC News Nightline
On January 3, 2006, ABC News Nightline aired a special segment, "The More the Holier?" on the Quiverfull movement.[38] The coverage was re-aired on ABC's World News Now about four hours later. On September 15, 2007, Nightline revisited the issue as part of their "Faith Matters" series, again featuring the Carpenter family.
[edit]The Nation
Journalist Kathryn Joyce connected Brooks' "natalism" with Quiverfull and disagreed with him in her November 9, 2006, 5-page article on Quiverfull in The Nation. Joyce emphasized that the movement uses what she described as "military-industrial terminology" to articulate the belief that "only a determination among Christian women to take up their submissive, motherly roles with a 'military air'" and within a milieu of becoming "maternal missionaries" will lead to what Joyce described as Quiverfull's "Christian army" achieving cultural "victory."[5]
[edit]Newsweek
Four days later, on November 13, 2006, Newsweek provided a 2-page piece on Quiverfull, characterizing the movement as conservatives who are "reacting to revolutionary changes in women's social roles and seeking to re-impose a more traditional order". The piece ended by quoting a Quiverfull family describing themselves as "exponentially happier" after the wife relinquished control of her womb to God.[39] On March 17, 2009, Newsweek published a second piece on Quiverfull through their website.[40]
[edit]Fox National News
On January 16, 2007 Fox News Live Desk with Martha MacCallum, segment, "When birthing children is a religious experience." Martha MacCallum talks with Rachel Scott, author, "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors". Rachel Scott answers common questions asked to large families and disputes myths "Quiverfull" women are made to stay home and tend to babies. Rachel Scott describes the Proverbs 31 woman as a business owner, educated and very capable. Rachel Scott also shares about "the dream with a warrior angel" that started her "Quiverfull" experience and led to writing her book, "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors".
[edit]Quiverfull responses
In the proximate aftermath of the U.S. national print articles, responses from Quiverfull adherents in The Quiverfull Digest ranged from "feeling betrayed" to assertions that the articles were "fair".[41] Additionally, a few disagreeing Quiverfull adherents undertook apologetic responses on the Internet discussion forums provided by the latter national publishers in immediate on-site connection with their articles.[5][39]
[edit]Notable adherents
Michael Farris - Farris, a conservative United States constitutional lawyer, founded the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. His wife Vickie is the author of A Mom Just Like You (2002). The couple has ten children and six grandchildren.[42][43]
Doug Phillips - Phillips is a Calvinist Christian and the son of U.S. Constitution Party leader Howard Phillips and president of Vision Forum Ministries that advocates for Biblical patriarchy, creationism, homeschooling, and Quiverfull. Doug and his wife Beall have eight children.[4][44]
Charles D. Provan - Provan's book The Bible and Birth Control is routinely cited by Quiverfull adherents as providing important theological justification for their movement, and was quoted in a November 27, 2006, article about Quiverfull in The Nation magazine. He was an author of books and articles on other Christian topics. Before Provan's 2007 death, he and his wife had ten children.[5]
R.C. Sproul, Jr. is a Calvinist Christian minister and theologian and is the son of Robert Charles Sproul, a noted Reformed theologian and founder of Ligonier Ministries. Sproul Jr. and his wife Denise have eight children.[35][45][46]
[edit]Notable former adherents
Andrea Yates - a woman from Houston, Texas, USA, who, after suffering for years with very severe postpartum depression and psychosis, drowned her five young children in a bathtub on June 20, 2001. Her first psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, warned Yates and her husband against having more children, stating in Yates's medical record two days later, '"Apparently patient and husband plan to have as many babies as nature will allow! This will surely guarantee future psychotic depression."[47][48]
-
this is from Wikipedia. What do you think of these people and their beliefs?
I know that they are Protestants. What do you think?
I think they are Protestants. They are formally outside the Church and they would cheerfully and proudly agree that they are outside the Catholic Church.
Whatever their doctrines, they are not on the path to heaven. It is through reading Protestant material that Catholics start thinking, "Hey. Those Protestants aren't so bad." The point is that "not being bad" doesn't get one to heaven. If one is trying to evangelize them, one doesn't tear down their errors (whether or not there are any in this article or not is irrelevant), one explains and defends the Catholic Faith. So knowing what a Jєω, heretic, or infidel believes in his false and demonic religion is not helpful; it is, in fact, a danger to the Catholic's own faith.
I think that this article should be placed on the Index of Forbidden Topics*.
*The Index of Forbidden Topics is not an actual list. It is a list that members should, by instinct, know is a danger to the faith and individuals should limit their participation.
-
They're Protestants and therefore are heretics. That's all that really needs to be said.
-
Well, I expect it will surprise no one that I take a more lax view of the dogma EENS than some here do. I would say that as Protestants go, they are not so bad.
-
Well, I expect it will surprise no one that I take a more lax view of the dogma EENS than some here do. I would say that as Protestants go, they are not so bad.
Well Sigismund, that's not what the Church believes:
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): "Hold most firmly and never doubt at all that not only pagans, but also all Jєωs, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): "He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.' Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ."
"He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation." (Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Latina)
"Christ has declared the unity of the Church. Whoever parts and divides the Church cannot possess Christ ... The House of God is but one, and no one can have salvation except in the Church" (The Unity of the Church)
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church ... and it is they who in His Church have labored in doing good works whom the Lord says shall be received into the Kingdom of Heaven on the Day of Judgment." (Epistle 73:21)
Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): "What is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the ѕуηαgσgυєs of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church."
Saints Cosmas and Damian (died A.D. 303): "There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church"
St. Catherine of Alexandria (died A.D. 307) "It is necessary for you to believe the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, as must every man in order to save his soul."
Lactantius (died A.D. 310): "It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the Faith, this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation."
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (died A.D. 386): "Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away."
Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): "Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward."
St. John Chrysostom (died A.D. 407): "We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and Catholic Faith."
St. Gaudentius of Brescia (died A.D. 410): "It is certain that all men of Noah's time perished, except those who merited to be in the Ark, which was a figure of the Church. Likewise, they cannot in any way now be saved who are aliens from the Apostolic Faith and the Catholic Church"
Bishop Niceta of Remesiana (died A.D. 415): "He is the Way along which we journey to our salvation; the Truth, because He rejects what is false; the Life, because He destroys death. ...All who from the beginning of the world were, or are, or will be justified - whether Patriarchs, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or Prophets, whether Apostles or martyrs, or any others - make up one Church, because they are made holy by one faith and way of life, stamped with one Spirit, made into one Body whose Head, as we are told, is Christ. I go further. The angels and virtues and powers in heaven are co-members in this one Church, for, as the Apostle teaches us, in Christ `all things whether on the earth or in the heavens have been reconciled.' You must believe, therefore, that in this one Church you are gathered into the Communion of Saints. You must know that this is the one Catholic Church established throughout the world, and with it you must remain in unshaken communion. There are, indeed, other so called `churches' with which you can have no communion. ...These `churches' cease to be holy, because they were deceived by the doctrines of the devil to believe and behave differently from what Christ commanded and from the tradition of the Apostles." (The Fathers of the Church)
Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. ...This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. ...And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church's enemies are also my enemies."
"Therefore, I believe it is good for me to praise the Chair and Faith of peter: with you alone remains uncorrupted the inhereitance of the Fathers. As I follow no one but Christ, so do I therefore unite myself with Your Holiness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this House is profane; whoever is not in this Ark of Noah will perish in the Flood; whoever does not gather with thee scatters; that is: he who is not Christ's is Antichrist's." (To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15)
Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."
-
Well, I expect it will surprise no one that I take a more lax view of the dogma EENS than some here do. I would say that as Protestants go, they are not so bad.
Do you take a 'lax view' of the dogma of the Trinity too?
There is no such thing as a 'lax view' of a dogma. Either you believe in a dogma, or you don't. You don't.
-
The Quiverfull Movement is a term adapted by non-denominational AKA Evangelical Protestants to explain why they reject birth control.
0s
Yes, we all know they are outside the Church. Rather than point that out, we might consider why this movement has become so popular and what the implications of it are.
Mainstream Protestants and even non-mainstream but denominational Protestants have, since the 70s, offered classes and promoted birth control as "responsible" parenthood. In their opinion, modern medicine and not having many children were good things. They have long been involved in the feminist movement and some of these churches were the first to offer "day care" for young children. In the 60s, there was no such entity as day care. IF a mother worked, grandma usually watched the children, or the smaller children were left in the care of the older ones. But in the 70s, these Protestant churches decided to have what they called "Mom's Day Out" programs offering day care for short periods of time. By the 1980, they had become full blown day care centers.
But I digress. The Protestants are notorious for their advocacy of birth control. They are also notorious for their anti-Catholicism. In the 70s, before the Catholics had really accepted completely birth control, there was a LOT of discrimination and prejudice around the Catholics with a bunch of children. It was seen as just not "normal" and self-defeating financially, especially since women were rushing into the work force.
But in Protestant circles, the 80s was a huge movement away from mainstream Protestantism to non-denominationalism. These people completely rejected any structure or dogma for free standing, congregation run, churches. As such, the became interested in what the Bible "really" says about all sorts of issues, rather than what a board of directors says.
They concluded that, among other things, birth control was contrary to God's plan and they rejected its use. They adopted the "quiverfull" in response to a Scipture passage from the Psalms, I think.
At the same time, though, there was a parenting movement going on called Ezzo Parenting or Babywise. Gary and Mary Anne Ezzo were pretty much no-bodies in the early 80s. He was a minister and she had been to nursing school where she wrote a paper criticizing "baby led feeding" as conflictual to Christian parenting. So they wrote a book talking about how to feed Christian babies and to get them to sleep at night. The evangelical community went crazy over it. Discussion of the evils of Babywise would need a separate topic.
In any case, when a new mother nurses her baby the benefit is prolonged infertility. When she nurses at night, especially, or when the baby co-sleeps, infertility can be prolonged for 12-18 months. (Yes, this is true). But with "Babywise" feeding, mother's fertility returns at 2 or 3 months. Add this to a rejection of birth control and you have a family a lot like the Duggars with 19 children.
Now, like the devil would have, there is a certain amount of truth to the "quiverfull" movement. As Christians, children are a blessing and we should not attempt to not have them (under most circuмstances). However, the devil doesn't want anyone else to think this is a good idea, so he uses the twisted Protestants to promote it. Having 20 children is pretty extreme, even for my thinking, and families like this have become a laughing stock and open to criticism.
It is well known that modern Catholics use birth control just like everybody else. Since I am new to traditional Catholicism, I only know a few traditional Catholics. Of those, I know of only one family with more than 10 children. They have 12 and they do practice something similar to Ezzo parenting--in practice but not theory. She stops nursing babies at 3 months.
Most of the women I know have about 2 years between children. I know one family with 10, another with 9, we have 7, there are several with 6, and several with 5.
Of modern Catholics, I know one family with 7, 1 family with 6, 2 families with 5, plenty with 4, a few with 3 and most with 2.
The implications? Large families are now symbolic of crazy Evangelicals. Traditional Catholics will be lumped into the category as these quiverfull Evangelicals and the Truth will remain hidden.
Catholics have failed miserably in keeping the faith alive and relevant. Instead they have led the way in encouraging some of the most egregious practices in this country and electing some the worst politicians ever.
God will not be mocked and there will be a price to pay.
Don't know it this is what you were asking, but these are my thoughts.
Quiverfull, as a movement, is to be rejected purely because of the Protestant theology that lies behind it.
-
As I have mentioned on other threads, I am taking pain meds for a broken arm. As a result, I didn't express myself very well. I will do no better now. I will try again when I will be able to think in a straight line. Sorry.
-
This post is a bit old, but I wanted to say that I really like CathMomof7's take on this topic. I have read a lot about this movement in the past, and I still often find myself reading Protestant parenting blogs (there is even a "quiverfull blog roll") because they are so much more popular than truly conservative Catholic ones. While I pray for their misguided spiritual lives, I do find myself (sadly) admiring these women who are so vocal about their social values. That is something that is really lacking from the Catholic Mom circles. The Prots have really filled the web with info on the "Christian Patriarchy Movement" which is the umbrella for the quiverfull movement and the stay at home daughter movement.
The Quiverfull Movement is a term adapted by non-denominational AKA Evangelical Protestants to explain why they reject birth control.
0s
Yes, we all know they are outside the Church. Rather than point that out, we might consider why this movement has become so popular and what the implications of it are.
The church should really take a long, hard look at this, if for no other reason than the simple math. If these families are having 10+ kids, homeschooling, and advising their daughters to skip college and marry young, that will effect the number of Christians who get lost into these beliefs. I have noticed in my reading that a lot of young women convert to this belief system (often coming from no faith background at all) and many of them are single mothers who marry into it. A lot of these women did not grow up this way. There is something to be noted there. These women aren't in love with the theology...they fall in love with the teachings on marriage and family life.
At the same time, though, there was a parenting movement going on called Ezzo Parenting or Babywise. Gary and Mary Anne Ezzo were pretty much no-bodies in the early 80s. He was a minister and she had been to nursing school where she wrote a paper criticizing "baby led feeding" as conflictual to Christian parenting. So they wrote a book talking about how to feed Christian babies and to get them to sleep at night. The evangelical community went crazy over it. Discussion of the evils of Babywise would need a separate topic.
In any case, when a new mother nurses her baby the benefit is prolonged infertility. When she nurses at night, especially, or when the baby co-sleeps, infertility can be prolonged for 12-18 months. (Yes, this is true). But with "Babywise" feeding, mother's fertility returns at 2 or 3 months. Add this to a rejection of birth control and you have a family a lot like the Duggars with 19 children.
I did not know about Babywise until recently. It is definitely evil and makes my heart break thinking about those crying babies. ;-( I have done gentle blanket training with my daughter (and was criticized for it) but I would never use any of the sleep tactics.
The implications? Large families are now symbolic of crazy Evangelicals. Traditional Catholics will be lumped into the category as these quiverfull Evangelicals and the Truth will remain hidden.
Catholics have failed miserably in keeping the faith alive and relevant. Instead they have led the way in encouraging some of the most egregious practices in this country and electing some the worst politicians ever.
You should blog CathMomof7. :) It is needed terribly. The internet is such an important tool for young women and young mothers. It is so hard to find the right information, and so easy to get sucked to the wrong stuff when bits and pieces of it feel right. There are so many women who might convert to Catholicism instead of following these Protestant sects if they could find more information geared specifically toward women.
-
It's not wrong to note when unbelievers are returning to the natural law while Catholics are departing more and more from it, even among Trads.
There is a very serious problem of traditionalism failing to transmit its values.
This is the reason for the liberalization.
-
It is well known that modern Catholics use birth control just like everybody else. Since I am new to traditional Catholicism, I only know a few traditional Catholics. Of those, I know of only one family with more than 10 children. They have 12 and they do practice something similar to Ezzo parenting--in practice but not theory. She stops nursing babies at 3 months.
Most of the women I know have about 2 years between children. I know one family with 10, another with 9, we have 7, there are several with 6, and several with 5.
Of modern Catholics, I know one family with 7, 1 family with 6, 2 families with 5, plenty with 4, a few with 3 and most with 2.
The implications? Large families are now symbolic of crazy Evangelicals. Traditional Catholics will be lumped into the category as these quiverfull Evangelicals and the Truth will remain hidden.
I agree.
God designed things so that new lives would come into being under normal circuмstances. Thwarting God's will is certainly diabolical.
But God also designed a way for mothers to feed their babies. Bypassing this is not a good thing either.
I believe there is a danger of looking down on families with "single digit children" in a movement like this. Being open to life is NOT the same as having as many children as physically possible.
I believe that many Trad Catholics unconsciously "compete" in this regard. When they have that 9th baby, they've "arrived" as a Trad. They can hold their head high with pride (emphasis on the pride) as they take their pew(s) at Mass every Sunday. If I have 10 children, and you only have 5, I'm "more Trad" than you. This attitude obviously doesn't come from God.
If God meant for all good Catholics to have 18 children, He wouldn't have made breastfeeding postpone fertility.
Just like not all parents are equipped to do a good job homeschooling, so also many parents would be overwhelmed by a double-digit family.
Does God give intelligence out in equal amounts? Stature? Strength? Health? Leadership ability? Business acuмen? None of the above. So also, He wills that one couple have no children, another couple to have 5 children, and another couple to have 16.
But that couple with 16 He *also* willed to meet each other and get married in their late teens. :wink:
-
It's just frightening how fast these groups are growing. I get a magazine called "Above Rubies" which focuses heavily on rejecting birth control and Biblical marriage. The readership is huge. Each issue is page after page of featured families. Young with several children. Very modest dress. Homeschooling. Homesteading.
Catholic mother's have no comparable outlet. Mainly because there is so little consistency in teachings of morality, so Catholic Mom blogs are often extremely secular in content. So if someone is seeking information on the true faith they are going to have a hard time finding Tradition buried in the pile. If they are like me, and they do find it, there is very little content on the day to day (not just the ideological) lives of trad women and mothers. The greatest Mother of all is terribly undermentioned in the sea of information on Christian motherhood. :( Where are the Titus 2 mothers in Catholicism?
-
There are plenty. They just don't have the LOOK AT ME, SEE HOW HOLY I AM attitude of evangelicals. The magazines, tv shows, blogs with thousands of followers, books, speaking tours...aren't there because most Catholic women raising their families aren't concerned with worldly recognition or pats on their back from people they don't know. They just do it. Love their families, take care of friends and neighbors and that is that. It is almost awkward to run across a Catholic mom blog that is more than just sharing and is instructing, the ' raise your family my way which is the Godly way ' is really the purview of the evangelical Protestants.
-
Matthew, while I'm not against breast-feeding, even prolonged breastfeeding (I was breast fed until age two myself - which might have been too long) - it is a fact that Catholics did not always practice lengthy breastfeeding.
St. Catherine of Sienna was the twenty-fifth of her mother's children.
And as for God willing a young marriage - that depends on the age of the girl, I don't see any requirement a man marries in his late teens if he wants a very large family.
While I agree that people shouldn't see the size of family as a competition, there's nothing wrong in taking a just pride in the size of one's family.
My grandmother's friend (in her late 80s now) lived on a farm and had her last child at age 48. He's maybe 10 years older than me.
I get the feeling that the size of trad families today is somewhat less than the typical size of devout Catholic families in the pre-Vatican II era. And I don't think that difference can really be ascribed to breastfeeding.
-
Sometimes there is more latent feminism among Catholics than among the secular society. Statements that can be made at a secular school are likely to be met with more disapproval at a Catholic university. This is not surprising when we consider how leftward leaning much of the clergy has become.
I just wish there were more women like my mother, who were really raised in a Catholic town and a Catholic home - wherein feminist attitudes are to all appearances non-existent.
-
Catholic evangelism doesn't really exist. It used to. It was Catholic missionaries that brought Christianity to Northern Europe in the first place!
-
And Catholics brought Christianity to America first too!
(http://www.christopher-columbus.eu/photos/Columbus-Taking-Possession.jpg)
-
Catholic evangelism doesn't really exist. It used to. It was Catholic missionaries that brought Christianity to Northern Europe in the first place!
That's one thing I admire about certain people with Feeneyite tendencies - the fervor with which they try to spread the Faith.
-
My grandmother's friend (in her late 80s now) lived on a farm and had her last child at age 48. He's maybe 10 years older than me.
Since she's 90 at the oldest, he must be only 42 or 43. I suppose I was about 10 and he was fully grown.
-
Catholic evangelism doesn't really exist. It used to. It was Catholic missionaries that brought Christianity to Northern Europe in the first place!
That's one thing I admire about certain people with Feeneyite tendencies - the fervor with which they try to spread the Faith.
I think I know what you mean, but thank God it is heresy, because it makes God out to be unjust.
I think Catholics are conquered people and that's why they behave so impotently.
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
-
My grandmother's friend (in her late 80s now) lived on a farm and had her last child at age 48. He's maybe 10 years older than me.
Since she's 90 at the oldest, he must be only 42 or 43. I suppose I was about 10 and he was fully grown.
There's this medical procedure they commonly do to women nowadays that prevents them from ever having children again. They usually have it when they are suppose to be "too old" for babies. Interestingly, statistics say, iirc, for well over 90% the procedure is entirely elective!
-
My grandmother's friend (in her late 80s now) lived on a farm and had her last child at age 48. He's maybe 10 years older than me.
Since she's 90 at the oldest, he must be only 42 or 43. I suppose I was about 10 and he was fully grown.
There's this medical procedure they commonly do to women nowadays that prevents them from ever having children again. They usually have it when they are suppose to be "too old" for babies. Interestingly, statistics say, iirc, for well over 90% the procedure is entirely elective!
Or the wife leaves the husband. That's what happened to him. That's what's happening to Catholic families these days.
-
My grandmother's friend (in her late 80s now) lived on a farm and had her last child at age 48. He's maybe 10 years older than me.
Since she's 90 at the oldest, he must be only 42 or 43. I suppose I was about 10 and he was fully grown.
There's this medical procedure they commonly do to women nowadays that prevents them from ever having children again. They usually have it when they are suppose to be "too old" for babies. Interestingly, statistics say, iirc, for well over 90% the procedure is entirely elective!
Or the wife leaves the husband. That's what happened to him. That's what's happening to Catholic families these days.
What a shame
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
Look at Bishop Williamson. He was, I think, intentionally using the internet, especially Youtube, to proselytize and his audience included: protestants, catholics, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Jєωs, ect.. I think he had a gift for it. But what happens? He gets punished and his own people turn on him.
On the protestant side, look at Ken Hovind. Again, an extremely effective speaker, who probably convinced tens of millions of people that evolution was bologna and that biblical creation appeared to be consistent with bona fide science. He's serving a ten year sentence for what is probably trumped up charges and besides, anyone else would have only got probation!
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yTn1YAd30PI/TRc2hLgEP1I/AAAAAAAABdc/hRC_n5vtj0Q/s1600/St_Stephen_Martyrdom.jpg)
-
There are plenty. They just don't have the LOOK AND SEE HOW HOLY I AM attitude of evangelicals. The magazines, tv shows, blogs with thousands of followers, books, speaking tours...aren't there because most Catholic women raising their families aren't concerned with worldly recognition or pats on their back from people they don't know. They just do it. Love their families, take care of friends and neighbors and that is that. It is almost awkward to run across a Catholic mom blog that is more than just sharing and is instructing, the ' raise your family my way which is the Godly way ' is really the purview of the evangelical Protestants.
Interesting point. I wish I could find more. Catholic message boards for mothers do not offer traditional guidance. Maybe I'm overly lonely or something that I just long so much for friendship or to feel there are other moms who believe the same things. For those who don't have sisters and mothers, the internet feels like the only resource.
Blog wise, I don't follow the speaking tour/televangelists types. Nor do I care for Michelle Duggar. I'm thinking more of the homesteading type families. They have more interesting things to say then who uses what method of NFP.
-
Matthew, while I'm not against breast-feeding, even prolonged breastfeeding (I was breast fed until age two myself - which might have been too long) - it is a fact that Catholics did not always practice lengthy breastfeeding.
Fertility can return while still nursing. Many women nurse through pregnancy or even tandem nurse. It seems like it varies a lot.
-
Matthew, while I'm not against breast-feeding, even prolonged breastfeeding (I was breast fed until age two myself - which might have been too long) - it is a fact that Catholics did not always practice lengthy breastfeeding.
Fertility can return while still nursing. Many women nurse through pregnancy or even tandem nurse. It seems like it varies a lot.
One reason it varies so much is that people generally speak of breastfeeding as either you do it or you don't, when in reality, there are many variations that each have an affect to some degree on whether or not the body continues to supress fertility. Probably the biggest one of note is whether or not the mom pumps milk to "cover" for nursing during any time of the day or night. I've even read that lying down to nurse is different in this respect than nursing while busying yourself with some other thing (like reading CathInfo :smirk:). (Don't take that as certain truth, mind you, as I only happened across it when looking for ideas on keeping baby from working her way off the bed.)
And so, Tele's comment about lengthy breastfeeding doesn't have a huge amont of bearing on fertility as there's a big difference between nursing a newborn and nursing a toddler. The newborn nurses for food every 2-4 hours consistently day and night whereas the toddler nurses for comfort whenever and for however long he/she feels like (hopefully only during the day!). The latter isn't going to have nearly as great an effect on fertility as the former.
I've not spent a huge amont of time looking online, but it seems there's very little information out there.
ADD: Note also that the return of fertility after birth is not simply an off or on, but more likely to be irregular if you're still breastfeeding.
-
Matthew, while I'm not against breast-feeding, even prolonged breastfeeding (I was breast fed until age two myself - which might have been too long) - it is a fact that Catholics did not always practice lengthy breastfeeding.
Fertility can return while still nursing. Many women nurse through pregnancy or even tandem nurse. It seems like it varies a lot.
One reason it varies so much is that people generally speak of breastfeeding as either you do it or you don't, when in reality, there are many variations that each have an affect to some degree on whether or not the body continues to supress fertility. Probably the biggest one of note is whether or not the mom pumps milk to "cover" for nursing during any time of the day or night. I've even read that lying down to nurse is different in this respect than nursing while busying yourself with some other thing (like reading CathInfo :smirk:). (Don't take that as certain truth, mind you, as I only happened across it when looking for ideas on keeping baby from working her way off the bed.)
And so, Tele's comment about lengthy breastfeeding doesn't have a huge amont of bearing on fertility as there's a big difference between nursing a newborn and nursing a toddler. The newborn nurses for food every 2-4 hours consistently day and night whereas the toddler nurses for comfort whenever and for however long he/she feels like (hopefully only during the day!). The latter isn't going to have nearly as great an effect on fertility as the former.
I've not spent a huge amont of time looking online, but it seems there's very little information out there.
ADD: Note also that the return of fertility after birth is not simply an off or on, but more likely to be irregular if you're still breastfeeding.
That is very interesting about the laying down. I had always read that nocturnal nursing has the greatest impact on suppression of ovulation....maybe that is why.
Pumping for me meant only about 7 months...but still, that would have been maybe a 16-17 month age gap....which wouldn't be too bad, right?
I have read that if you conceive while nursing you have a higher chance of twins. That could certainly raise family numbers!
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
Look at Bishop Williamson. He was, I think, intentionally using the internet, especially Youtube, to proselytize and his audience included: protestants, catholics, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Jєωs, ect.. I think he had a gift for it. But what happens? He gets punished and his own people turn on him.
On the protestant side, look at Ken Hovind. Again, an extremely effective speaker, who probably convinced tens of millions of people that evolution was bologna and that biblical creation appeared to be consistent with bona fide science. He's serving a ten year sentence for what is probably trumped up charges and besides, anyone else would have only got probation!
Effective leaders who really fight back against the system are punished.
The tragedy is that their so-called brothers and followers turn on them so readily.
-
There are plenty. They just don't have the LOOK AND SEE HOW HOLY I AM attitude of evangelicals. The magazines, tv shows, blogs with thousands of followers, books, speaking tours...aren't there because most Catholic women raising their families aren't concerned with worldly recognition or pats on their back from people they don't know. They just do it. Love their families, take care of friends and neighbors and that is that. It is almost awkward to run across a Catholic mom blog that is more than just sharing and is instructing, the ' raise your family my way which is the Godly way ' is really the purview of the evangelical Protestants.
Interesting point. I wish I could find more. Catholic message boards for mothers do not offer traditional guidance. Maybe I'm overly lonely or something that I just long so much for friendship or to feel there are other moms who believe the same things. For those who don't have sisters and mothers, the internet feels like the only resource.
Blog wise, I don't follow the speaking tour/televangelists types. Nor do I care for Michelle Duggar. I'm thinking more of the homesteading type families. They have more interesting things to say then who uses what method of NFP.
You'd probably like Julie @ trinityacres. blogspot .com
Maybe leila @ ourmothersdaughters. Blogspot. Com although she may not be traditional enough for you. She writes a lot about mothering, housekeeping, hospitality etc...
-
You'd probably like Julie @ trinityacres. blogspot .com
Maybe leila @ ourmothersdaughters. Blogspot. Com although she may not be traditional enough for you. She writes a lot about mothering, housekeeping, hospitality etc...
Thank you so much. I will check those out. I laughed when I read "traditional enough" because I don't even really identify as a traditional Catholic. I know you were referring to my stringent views on certain topics, but real traditional Catholics don't cry over where to go to mass, if to go to mass at all etc. I'm a mess of a Catholic, if anything. For every answer, there is another question.
I've not spent a huge amont of time looking online, but it seems there's very little information out there.
I missed this before.
http://www.amazon.com/Breastfeeding-Natural-Spacing-Sheila-Kippley/dp/1435746546/ref=la_B001K7LLFK_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348424345&sr=1-1
I learned a lot from this book about the science side of it all--obviously useless information for me, lol, but it was an interesting read.
I think the concept of ecological breastfeeding is good, but I would guess it would be hard to follow all the guidelines if you have other children to take care of or if your baby naturally sleeps a lot at night. I think maybe just doing what feels instinctive is natural enough and then the Lord will send blessings when it is meant to be.
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
Look at Bishop Williamson. He was, I think, intentionally using the internet, especially Youtube, to proselytize and his audience included: protestants, catholics, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Jєωs, ect.. I think he had a gift for it. But what happens? He gets punished and his own people turn on him.
On the protestant side, look at Ken Hovind. Again, an extremely effective speaker, who probably convinced tens of millions of people that evolution was bologna and that biblical creation appeared to be consistent with bona fide science. He's serving a ten year sentence for what is probably trumped up charges and besides, anyone else would have only got probation!
Effective leaders who really fight back against the system are punished.
The tragedy is that their so-called brothers and followers turn on them so readily.
Yeah, it's hard to fight in two directions at once! :laugh1:
-
Matthew, while I'm not against breast-feeding, even prolonged breastfeeding (I was breast fed until age two myself - which might have been too long) - it is a fact that Catholics did not always practice lengthy breastfeeding.
Fertility can return while still nursing. Many women nurse through pregnancy or even tandem nurse. It seems like it varies a lot.
One reason it varies so much is that people generally speak of breastfeeding as either you do it or you don't, when in reality, there are many variations that each have an affect to some degree on whether or not the body continues to supress fertility. Probably the biggest one of note is whether or not the mom pumps milk to "cover" for nursing during any time of the day or night. I've even read that lying down to nurse is different in this respect than nursing while busying yourself with some other thing (like reading CathInfo :smirk:). (Don't take that as certain truth, mind you, as I only happened across it when looking for ideas on keeping baby from working her way off the bed.)
And so, Tele's comment about lengthy breastfeeding doesn't have a huge amont of bearing on fertility as there's a big difference between nursing a newborn and nursing a toddler. The newborn nurses for food every 2-4 hours consistently day and night whereas the toddler nurses for comfort whenever and for however long he/she feels like (hopefully only during the day!). The latter isn't going to have nearly as great an effect on fertility as the former.
I've not spent a huge amont of time looking online, but it seems there's very little information out there.
ADD: Note also that the return of fertility after birth is not simply an off or on, but more likely to be irregular if you're still breastfeeding.
When I had my first child in 1992, I knew absolutely nothing about nursing. I wanted to nurse so badly, but ultimately failed because I had no personal knowledge and poor counsel from Dr's and busybodies. He went on the bottle completely at 4 months. :sad:When I was pregnant with my second son, I was determined to not fail so I studied and read. At the time, I was still a student, I had access to all sorts of medical books and information. I learned a lot and I learned that all this information has either been lost or purposely kept from women. Since then, I have successfully nursed for varying periods 6 other children until they self-weaned. Unfortunately, with the first 3 children we were not Catholic at all and there spacing is due to birth control practices. The other 4 are not. Those 4 are naturally spaced, through my natural fertility. They closest space is 23 months.
True nursing ABSOLUTELY prolongs a woman's fertility for at least 9 months. According to most medical journals with watching women in primitive cultures where this type of feeding is normal, about 95% of women will remain inovulatory for that long. Of those, 50-60% of women will remain infertile for 15 months. About 10% enjoy infertility beyond 18 months and another small percentage beyond 2 years!
The catch here is true nursing...what is it exactly? Basically it means putting the baby to the breast whenever it needs food or comfort. It means no pacifiers or solid food until they have teeth or can feed themselves, which is around 9 or 10 months. In order to do this, especially at night, the baby MUST sleep either with you are right next to you.
Night nursing, not introducing solid food early, and comfort suckling are the KEY factors to prolonging fertility. It is God's way.
In past times, mothers cared for their own young and they were with them constantly. There were no baby cribs, either. Babies slept right next to their mother, not in another room. Mother's didn't mash up food to put it in their babies mouths, they just nursed them. To keep them quiet, they nursed. Simple.
But modern women just don't want to live like this. It is hard to nurse an infant constantly, especially when they just want to be comforted. It is even harder to co-sleep for extended periods.
I've found that many trad Catholics are really opposed to co-sleeping. Of the ones I know with really large families, I believe this is the single biggest factor in an early return to fertility.
Factors that are necessary to prolong fertility:
1) Frequent nursing.
2) Night nursing.
3) No breast pumping. Pumping greatly increases a woman's return to fertility.
4) No solid foods or very limited intake.
5) No pacifiers.
6) Co-sleepiing.
7) Nursing during naps and at night while lying down.
By following these guidelines, most women can prolong a return to fertility until around 12-18 months.
Some women notice a return earlier, about 9 months.
In other words, it is very simple to space one's children around 2 years apart. It's perfectly normal.
No charting or checking is needed. Just feed your baby the way God intended and you'll be just fine.
I also might add, co-sleeping with a baby also limits the occasions of marital relations. One must be creative. I believe this is why many parents opt for the baby bed in another room, even trads. I know this is a fact from many of my friends who have more than 8 children.
-
In other words, when your body thinks you don't have a baby anymore, then (and only then) is it "time for another one".
It should be noted though that there are no guarantees about the infertility period. Some women's fertility returns sooner than others, and they obviously can't be blamed for that.
But natural breastfeeding makes sense in so many ways; formula feeding should be a rare exception to the rule, rather than the norm.
-
In other words, when your body thinks you don't have a baby anymore, then (and only then) is it "time for another one".
It should be noted though that there are no guarantees about the infertility period. Some women's fertility returns sooner than others, and they obviously can't be blamed for that.
But natural breastfeeding makes sense in so many ways; formula feeding should be a rare exception to the rule, rather than the norm.
My son never had a bottle and he slept next to me. I nursed him every 1.5 - 2 hours at first and then on demand 24/7. He liked to nursing lying down so I often nursed him like that. I was not employed, I lived in a small apt so not too much housework, and I had no other children so there was nothing to delay a feeding.
I miscarried twice before he was 10 months old.
I believing nursing in general does postpone fertility but wanted to share my experience. If you needed to postpone conceiving it would be necessary to chart or abstain.
-
What we call natural mothering, econological breastfeeding, attachment parenting, is not necessarily Catholic teaching beyond that it is a way for mothers care for their children. We have an obligation to care for our children but we should not confuse Catholic teaching with what is popular. Some parents have used wet nurses and nannies.
Spacing 18 - 24 months apart from ecological breastfeeding is not Catholic teaching either. It's not wrong to feed on a schedule and have children 13 months apart.
-
Catholic evangelism doesn't really exist. It used to. It was Catholic missionaries that brought Christianity to Northern Europe in the first place!
That's one thing I admire about certain people with Feeneyite tendencies - the fervor with which they try to spread the Faith.
I think I know what you mean, but thank God it is heresy, because it makes God out to be unjust.
Don't go "thanking God" so early, for it is not a heresy, moreover, it does not make God out to be unjust. Two errors in "your thinking".
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above…for if it should come to pass [/u](which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
-
Catholic evangelism doesn't really exist. It used to. It was Catholic missionaries that brought Christianity to Northern Europe in the first place!
That's one thing I admire about certain people with Feeneyite tendencies - the fervor with which they try to spread the Faith.
I think I know what you mean, but thank God it is heresy, because it makes God out to be unjust.
Don't go "thanking God" so early, for it is not a heresy, moreover, it does not make God out to be unjust. Two errors in "your thinking".
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And well should the pagan lament, who not knowing God, dying goes straight to punishment. Well should the Jєω mourn, who not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition.”
St. John Chrysostom, The Consolation of Death: “And plainly must we grieve for our own catechumens, should they, either through their own unbelief or through their own neglect, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism.”
St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Io. 25, 3:
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above…for if it should come to pass [/u](which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily III. On Phil. 1:1-20:
“Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, ‘Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homily XXV: “Hear, ye as many as are unilluminated, shudder, groan, fearful is the threat, fearful is the sentence. ‘It is not possible,’ He [Christ] saith, ‘for one not born of water and the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of heaven’; because he wears the raiment of death, of cursing, of perdition, he hath not yet received his Lord’s token, he is a stranger and an alien, he hath not the royal watchword. ‘Except,’ He saith, ‘a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven.”
This is way off topic, so you should start a thread somewhere on this topic and pm me to respond. Suffice it to say here, I think you are cherry picking your quotes. Also, I hate your avatar. :mad:
(http://formerchildactors.com/wp-content/gallery/buckwheat-photos/buckwheat-williams-billie-thomas-jr-photo-10.jpg)
-
What we call natural mothering, econological breastfeeding, attachment parenting, is not necessarily Catholic teaching beyond that it is a way for mothers care for their children. We have an obligation to care for our children but we should not confuse Catholic teaching with what is popular. Some parents have used wet nurses and nannies.
Spacing 18 - 24 months apart from ecological breastfeeding is not Catholic teaching either. It's not wrong to feed on a schedule and have children 13 months apart.
A birthday for every month of the year, neat!
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
Look at Bishop Williamson. He was, I think, intentionally using the internet, especially Youtube, to proselytize and his audience included: protestants, catholics, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Jєωs, ect.. I think he had a gift for it. But what happens? He gets punished and his own people turn on him.
On the protestant side, look at Ken Hovind. Again, an extremely effective speaker, who probably convinced tens of millions of people that evolution was bologna and that biblical creation appeared to be consistent with bona fide science. He's serving a ten year sentence for what is probably trumped up charges and besides, anyone else would have only got probation!
There was more to his case than not getting the city permit.
I also thought the judge was right pointing out how he refused federal taxes but then wanted the protection of the bankruptcy court..
-
This is way off topic, so you should start a thread somewhere on this topic and pm me to respond. .... Also, I hate your avatar. :mad:
You were the one that made the comment that it's a heresy. You should start your own thread to prove it. Of course you will not start such a tread because it's just your personal detracting opinion, you have no evidence that it is a heresy.
-
It sounds like somebody is developing some common sense.
-
I think Catholics are conquered people
Looking at what's happening to trads, it's hard to argue against the claim that most do seem to be cowed and tired out.
Look at Bishop Williamson. He was, I think, intentionally using the internet, especially Youtube, to proselytize and his audience included: protestants, catholics, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Jєωs, ect.. I think he had a gift for it. But what happens? He gets punished and his own people turn on him.
On the protestant side, look at Ken Hovind. Again, an extremely effective speaker, who probably convinced tens of millions of people that evolution was bologna and that biblical creation appeared to be consistent with bona fide science. He's serving a ten year sentence for what is probably trumped up charges and besides, anyone else would have only got probation!
There was more to his case than not getting the city permit.
I also thought the judge was right pointing out how he refused federal taxes but then wanted the protection of the bankruptcy court..
I don't want to argue the details of it. Suffice it to say, I think our own government was biased against him. So, I doubt he got a fair trial. In any case, the sentence was extremely harsh. Hey, Reginald Denny's attackers got a lot less for attempted murder! (the worst of the bunch, only served 4 years)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QvEugqG9-sM/0.jpg)
-
This is way off topic, so you should start a thread somewhere on this topic and pm me to respond. .... Also, I hate your avatar. :mad:
You were the one that made the comment that it's a heresy. You should start your own thread to prove it. Of course you will not start such a tread because it's just your personal detracting opinion, you have no evidence that it is a heresy.
I thought it had been declared heresy by the RCC.
-
This is way off topic, so you should start a thread somewhere on this topic and pm me to respond. .... Also, I hate your avatar. :mad:
You were the one that made the comment that it's a heresy. You should start your own thread to prove it. Of course you will not start such a tread because it's just your personal detracting opinion, you have no evidence that it is a heresy.
I thought it had been declared heresy by the RCC.
"Conclusion
Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)..."
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm
-
"FR. FEENEY AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
A reissue of the article appearing in Verbum, No. 24 (1986), prefaced by the previous Editorial, clarifying the teaching of the Church regarding Baptism.
Many of our friends have heard of Fr. Leonard Feeney, and some of them have a great esteem for this priest who fought against the liberal ecuмenism by recalling again and again that outside the Church there is no salvation. But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953. It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc. Well, we have just to open his book The Bread of Life (first published in l952)..."
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm