That Post About CCL

The most important thing I want to say about CCL is that I'm glad it's there.  An international organization helping couples use the sympto-thermal method -- there's such a need for the work they do.  I have met some lovely couples who teach for CCL.  My own practice of NFP would have been far more difficult without them.

However.

I also have reservations about CCL.  The lovely teaching couples far outnumber the scary teaching couples, but there are some scary ones out there announcing that sterilized couples are going to hell.  For a long time I could not read "Family Foundations" without some aaaggghh moments, when I turned a page and felt ambushed by legalism and more-Catholic-than-thou-ness.   

Before we go any further I have to tell you my theory of personality, which is that there are two kinds of people in the world: people who like rules, and people who don't.  Me, I am a rules person from a rules family.  When I read Newton's laws for the first time at age 12, I was suddenly suffused with a joy that lasted all afternoon (this is where you channel Rick James and sing, "Supergeek! Supergeek! She's supergeeky!") because they spoke to me of a universe that was orderly and comprehensible.  To this day rules please me:  the phonological rule that explained why one of my sons said "geese" instead of "ski" and "dice" instead of "sty," the culinary rule that tells me I can make meringues using a quarter-cup of sugar for each egg white.

There is an ugly side to loving rules, though, a tendency toward intolerance and a habit of assuming that other people's troubles are their own fault.  I can rely on my parents to sniff acerbically, "I guess the rules do not apply to him," within three minutes of reading about a celebrity who has found himself in hot water -- as if following the rules were the key to problem-free living.  Three things (in addition to Einstein's demonstration that Newton's laws don't tell the whole story) compel me to keep my love of rules in check.

The first:  as a miserable 16yo senior in high school, desperately trying to perform and achieve and fit my parents' mold for me, I went on a retreat during which I read the letter to the Galatians for the first time.  I got to the fifth chapter and read those beautiful words -- "You were called to be free" -- and the Holy Spirit blew the roof off my life.  It sounds overdramatic  but it's true:  in that moment the Voice of the living God spoke to my 16yo heart.  What it said was something like this:  "Hey, Jamie, it's awfully crowded in that box where you've been living.  Would you like to come out and dance with me?"

I am not eager to get back in that box.

The second:  it is impossible for me to read the Gospels without an inward shudder at Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees.  The Pharisees meant well, as far as I can tell -- they were trying to safeguard the truth they had been given, and lead lives that pleased God.  At great cost to himself, Jesus told them they were going about it all wrong. As much as I would like to tell myself that the blind guides and whited sepulchres business just meant they were following the wrong rules, and I'm okay as long as I follow the right ones, I cannot.  Jesus could not have said it any more clearly:  He is bigger than the rules.  It's not about the rules.

The third:  the man I fell in love with and married is a supreme Un-Rules Person (it shows you the extent of my rulesiness that I cannot think of a better acronym than URP, though I do find the title ur-URP quite appealing -- don't you think he will too?) and one of the chief tasks of our marriage has been coming to terms with this difference in our personalities.  It's ironic that I took some flak here and elsewhere for sounding self-righteous in that post about breastfeeding last month, because I am married to my very own S4 (Super-Sensitive Sanctimony Sniffer-outer).  On the notorious problem issues for married couples -- sex, money, kids, in-laws -- we can talk harmoniously.  We may not be singing the same note, but usually the blend is pleasant.  But if he thinks I'm being self-righteous on any topic -- well, that's a lit match in the powder keg, folks.

In the early years of our marriage I used to find myself frustrated by his unwillingness to listen to my helpful little pointers.  "You know," I would tell him as we were leaving for Mass, "if you finish your cup of coffee in the car you won't be able to observe the communion fast."  I was perplexed by the irritated eye-rolling that inevitably followed such pronouncements.  Our marriage became much happier when I got a handle on two basic truths:  first, my husband is responsible for his own choices; second, my rules-focused bad habits, like anxious watch-checking instead of praying in the communion line (It's only been 58 minutes since I finished breakfast!  I hope the line moves slowly!), did not honor God any more than M's bad habits did. 

In my dozen years of hanging out with NFP users, I have observed that many of them are rules people.  It makes sense:  when good info on NFP is so hard to find, a person has to be motivated to seek it out. It was my determination to live in accord with Humanae Vitae that led me to keep searching for a way to make NFP work.  As it happened, I discovered a highly effective, marriage-enhancing, side-effect-free method of family planning in my quest to Follow The Rules.  I think, though, that communication breakdowns are not uncommon when rules people talk to URPs about NFP.

"It's great!" say the rules people. "You can live in faithfulness to Church teaching!"

"I could," think the URPs, "if I wanted to be a hidebound pompous pharisee like you!"

John and Sheila Kippley have written books to help Catholics offer their bodies as living sacrifices to God, and for that I am grateful. But they have also written books (the very same books) chock-a-block with rulesy directives.  I have to admit, reading them makes me a little crazy.  Catholics do not have a moral obligation to sleep with their infants in king-sized beds free of headboards and footboards. And yet from the emphasis this choice receives in The Art of NFP, you'd almost think there was a little-known encyclical on bedroom furniture.  I will never, ever take a daily nap with my baby as directed by Sheila Kippley's "natural mothering" schema -- naptime is too valuable for me to spend it sleeping.  I do not think this makes me an unnatural mother.

Perhaps many rules people share my antipathy toward change; I can't say for certain.  But I also see in the Kippleys' books a reluctance to move forward with the times.  They dispense outdated breastfeeding advice (about which more below).  More seriously, I think they hinder their own effectiveness by consistently speaking in pre-sexual-revolution terms. 

For instance:  one chapter of John Kippley's Sex and the Marriage Covenant, a book I am so glad to have read while I was engaged, addresses oral and anal sex.  He calls them "kinky sex," saying he expects some of his readers won't have known that people actually engaged in such behavior.  And yet for today's twenty-something reader, who was in high school when Bill Clinton was debating the meaning of "is," John Kippley's "kinky sex" is more often regarded as "the presidential treatment."  How far out of step can an author be with his younger readers before they stop listening?

This is not, let me be absolutely clear, a defense of post-sexual-revolution mores.  It is instead an observation that the Holy Spirit did not say at Pentecost, "Those Pamphylians ought to be speaking Aramaic if they want to be saved."  Instead He gave the apostles the ability to speak the truth in new languages.  I believe that when Catholics talk about HV to twenty-something engaged couples, we need to meet them where they are.

It is inaccurate for me to keep talking about the Kippleys as if they were Mr. and Mrs. CCL now that they have retired and CCL seems to be moving in a slightly different direction.  I'm intrigued to see where the new executive director will take the organization.  But as long as CCL uses The Art of NFP and Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing, the Kippleys' voices will come through loud and clear.  As I mentioned in a recent post, I've been thinking about this stuff because I just read Sheila Kippley's new book, Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood. 

One frustration for me in Sheila Kippley's writing on breastfeeding is her reliance on dated information.  She talks, for instance, about how soothing it was for her to blow air from a hairdryer on a traumatized nipple.  While I'm glad it worked for her, it's not evidence-based:  these days the focus is on moist wound healing.  I am troubled by her book's inclusion of a "solution" which may well slow the healing process for a mother in pain.

A second frustration is her reductivism.  Breastfeed your child or he could be a serial killer.  Be with your child full-time for the first three years or he might commit suicide as a teenager.

But I think my biggest frustration is the insistence (at least to my ear it is insistent) on good Catholic mothering as a package deal. Remember the scene in The Once and Future King where Wart becomes an ant?  There's a sign at the entrance to the ant colony: Everything not forbidden is compulsory.  Sometimes I feel that I have stumbled into that ant colony when I read the Kippleys' books.  This latest one makes much of Fr. William Virtue's contention that women have a serious moral obligation to breastfeed.  It's a theme I have noticed in the Kippleys' writing:  if it's a good thing, you ought to do it.

I am thinking of the Catholic Church as a great banquet where the main dish is, say, a fabulous curry -- rich and steaming and perfectly spiced.  The tables are groaning, filled with things you can choose to sprinkle on top or try on the side.  You don't like coconut garnishing your curry?  No problem.  No spicy eggplant for you?  Hey, it's your plate.  We're here for the curry; the rest is just trimmings.

I am re-reading that paragraph and thinking it sounds like an enthusiastic argument for cafeteria Catholicism.  Regular readers will know, I hope, that I am faithful to the magisterium.  I believe everybody who chooses to come to this banquet table needs a heaping helping of curry.

But it is my hope that faithful Catholics can eliminate the competitiveness ("I'll see your mantilla and raise you one green scapular") and the cookie-cutter-ness ("All Catholics should boycott goods made in China because of Chinese human rights violations") that mar the joyousness of the banquet we share.  And joy is a key idea for me here:  I was surprised to find so much joy in the service of the Lord Jesus.  Ditto for breastfeeding.

Of course it's not just about the joy.  There are days when Christian service feels like drudgery, days when breastfeeding is a pain in the neck ("in the nipple" would be more apt, I suppose).  But I would love to see less emphasis, in future Kippley books and in CCL publications, on shoulds and oughts, and more on the many-faceted delights of the feast we're called to share.

Comments

[Jane]

THANK YOU! CCL does some great work, but for the love of little green apples, they get so didactic sometimes!

I called them for help after my son was born. We were doing the full ecological breastfeeding thing, and what do you know--first period at six weeks postpartum, period at three months with ovulation before it, and every cycle thereafter with 43805789237 days of mucus production, a full thermal shift *and only four days of high temperatures maximum.* I was NOT ready to get pregnant again, so there was a *lot* of abstinence. I emailed them for help, and this is what John Kippley wrote back to me:

"You are not grateful enough for the blessings in your life."

Go stuff it, jerk. If I'm asking you why my body is broken and my spirit is broken, what I want to know is, "You can try taking this supplement," or "You can try reducing/increasing your breastfeeding time" or "It sounds like you're suffering from some postpartum depression, and we've found that many moms have an early return of fertility after a traumatic birth and postpartum depression." Not, "You're an ingrateful wench."

Funny, but our financial contributions to CCL dropped off sharply at that point... Oh, and Mr. Kippley said he "couldn't" interpret my charts because they weren't on OFFICIAL CCL PAPER! Because, you know, .4 degrees is different when it's recorded on blue paper rather than white paper. Maybe if I owned the special paper, I wouldn't have been ovulating...?

[alicia]

I have been involved in many 'movements' in my life - and I have seen a certain inflexibility and, dare I say, control freak attitude from many of the founder/leaders of these movements. I am personally thinking of some childbirth methods...(does anyone remember the Bradley/Lamaze wars?). I think that part of what happens is that someone discovers a wonderful truth, with the potential to really improve some aspect of life - and in the effort to disseminate that information without it being diluted down to the point of ineffectiveness, there is a certain possessiveness that develops. The really sad thing is that this attitude often ends up creating the very situation that it is meant to prevent, and it also leads to a cohort of disaffected former fanatics for whatever the insight/movement/discovery is.
For example, I was an early convert from Lamaze to Bradley childbirth techniques. I did Lamaze with my first baby (1974) and Bradley with my second (1976) and my Bradley classes were with the Hathaways as my instructors (the couple who took Dr. Bradley's insights and turned them into a Method, complete with trademark, marketing, etc.). I became a Bradley instructor in 1981 and left the organization in 1987. The method works, still works, is probably one of the better ways to get into training for childbirth - but all the extraneous stuff and all the micro-management from the 'home office' was more than I could take.
My husband and I spent 7 years as team for Marriage Encounter. It was a wonderful experience, but there was also the emphasis that this was the only way to have a good Catholic marriage - and that just isn't true.
What bothers me is the attitude that seems to happen all across the board that "What works for me will work for you." YOu know, we have Carmelites and Dominicans, and Jesuits, and Franciscans, and all kinds of other spirituality out there. We have active and contemplative and mixed.
Some people love the rosary, others the divine mercy chaplet, others the daily office, and some just go for the Jesus prayer. We have icons and statues, and medals and prayer cards, and none of these are absolutely essential but they are all enriching.
The basics of the faith are clearly outlined in the catechism. The teaching of the Popes from time immemorial is that moms have an obligation to care for their babies themselves, to breastfeed if humanly possible, and to respect the normal process of childbirth. The church has never changed her teaching on the immorality of contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc. But the ways in which the church can and should teach these eternal truths needs to be faithful and effective. Every time the enemy can get in there and play divide and conquer, every time he can get us squabbling among ourselves about the externals and less consequential items, he has won a battle.
My biggest issue with CCL is that when I got pregnant while breastfeeding my first baby, I lost faith in ANY method of NFP for several years. And when I tried to teach myself the STM from their books, I was totally lost - I couldn't figure out what was vital, what was important, and what was window dressing. I couldn't effectively use a multiple marker system because I couldn't see the forest for the trees - and I am NOT STUPID!
I'm in a group of NFP professionals (teachers, health care providers, researchers, diocesan representatives) and it is interesting how carefully people phrase opinions. I have been very impressed at how polite everyone is - but I can also see an under the surface current that is something like"How can(s)he be so stupid?" when a problem is identified within a particular method.
Boy , I sure rambled on here!

[Carmen]

My problem with CCL, and I do love them, is the "smiley face". Everyone who writes for the Family Foundations newsletter has a wonderful life. Nothing is ever wrong. There is very little mention of the times when you have a five year old, a three year old, a one year and you are newly postpartum. You are *desperate* to avoid a pregnancy. Your husband is *desperate* to come together. The CCL line is to pray together and everything will be fine. That is easier to say and tough to do, especially if you are in a marriage with a man who is, like most men, visually stimulated and works in a job with attractive women all day long. It doesn't seem like there is much understanding for normal life.

There is a lot of emphasis on only using "grave reasons", and yet my grave reasons aren't yours. It seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of judging exactly who is guilty of not having "grave' reasons.

Also, I became pregnant with this last time at 9 months pp, with relations on day 5 and a peak day on day 15. Not possible. Only God could have done that. Despite being open to life, I was still thrown for a large loop. It would have been nice to hear, when I asked someone to review my charts, some understanding of my feelings. To speak to someone who has had this type of thing happen, and they understood why I was so upset. Yeah, I'm supposed to be open. But it's harder to live than to say.

All of that aside, I still love CCL and the work that they do. I am exceedingly grateful that they were there, and I still believe in their work wholeheartedly. I just wish that they were more realistic.

[Papa-Lu]

With the caveat that I think any woman who can breastfeed should (though I refuse to dictate how often or for how long), I heartily agree with what you wrote here. Many of those who push certain parenting and birthing techniques with the admonition "do this or your kid will be a serial killer" seem to miss the point that 95% of ensuring social stability in your progeny is simply being lovingly present to your children. Yes, there are techniques and methods that have been shown to work, but those same techniques used by selfish, uninterested parents won't yield great results. Similarly, a lovingly present parent who doesn't have "the rules" down is not destined to raise a flock of degenerates.

I don't mean to denigrate those concerned parents who seek out strategies and methods: if something is known to work, why not use it? My distaste, rather is for those who reduce parenting to a program or a
technique that can be mastered. Parenting is a relationship that develops organically, it is a loving response to the glorious revelation of God's love that is a child. Approaching this relationship with a "strategy" seems somewhat strange. Then again, I may just not be a rules person.

As for CCL, I read a witness to the glory of NFP in their newsletter once. It left my wife and I with the distinct impression that this woman was mistakenly foregoing seriously needed psychotherapy and marriage counseling by clinging to NFP as a cure-all for her and her husband's problems. NFP may have been working for them, but they had serious issues that were going to bubble over into trouble sooner or later. This was aparently a success story.

I feel I should add the disclaimer that I embrace and endorse the Church's teaching that periodic continence for the purpose of delaying conception can be a moral good, and indeed my wife and have had recourse to such natural spacing. People always seem to question that when I say things like this.

[Papa-Lu]

P.S. My wife makes a great point about breastfeeding (in one of the tracked posts above). Father Virtue actually states that hostility at the breast is more damaging than bottle feeding.

[Kate]

My mother would say that the problem you are identifying in CCL, and is so rampant in other 'movements', is a tendency for people to confuse private and public revelation - as in, if God tells me I should be doing this, He must want everybody to do this - and my mother would, as usual, be right. ;-)

That said, the truth these movements communicate is often worth putting up with the hassle, at least for a while. If someone really has had their life transformed by CCL or Marriage Encounter, or Positive Discipline or LLL, then who am I to deny them their public enthusiasm?

I have friends who work in the CCL office, and apparently there is a lot of excitement (read:chaos) about all of the possibilities opened up by the Billing's retirement. One thing that was mentioned was perhaps fostering more co-operation and communication with other NFP and family-friendly organizations. Wouldn't that be a sight to see!

[Sally]

I would take everythign they say with a grain of salt and do what you think is best for yourself and your family. Being a breast feeding zealot is impractical and silly if you can breatfeed do it if you can't there is always a bottle. Mothering is only doing the best you can and I think that is all God asks of anyone

[Gina]

Hi!

In DC my friend Margaret (APL CO/WY) said that she knew of a blog I'd like, it was called Gladly, etc. Then, like 2 hours later I said, "Oh! It's so funny--this woman J and I keep bumping into each other at Conferences--we seem to be leading parallel lives or something." She said , J is Gladly! So it was a funny coincidence, and I finally made it here to visit!

I'm enjoying your blog and this post really spoke to me. I was raised Catholic, and after too many unaddressed questions decided to leave the Church before my confirmation. I've been on a wild faith journey and am finding myself drawn back to the church. However, NFP is definitely one of those areas that I am having the hardest time surrendering and letting go. I don't want anymore children. While I admire those who are truly open, I don't feel that way. I am tired. And overwhelmed. And you know I'd have another wild boy... ;-) Just kidding--but truly I do not feel equipped to deal with another pregnancy or another toddler.

There are other areas, too, where I am having trouble finding reconciliation. But, for whatever reason, I feel called back to explore those concerns/questions/disagreements *in*the Church rather than from outside looking in.

Anyway, I will read more and keep learning.
:)

Gina