Theology of the Body, Sexual Shame and Public Breast Feeding
John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body is very popular today with many young, faithful Catholics. That is a very good thing. However, there are at least two groups of folks who are not all that pleased with it. One of these groups is not surprising.
It is generally eschewed by those who promote sexual license, if not wanton promiscuity, at least in ways that reject the meaning of the human person and sexuality as authoritatively taught by the Church (read here same sex attraction disorder, sex outside of the marital union, etc.). Because it clearly shows how the human person is made to be complementary in terms of sexual difference and the real meaning of the sex can only be authentically understood in terms of a marital act, it negates the legitimacy of these folks’ attempts to insert pagan sexual “enlightenment” into Catholic theological discourse.
Another group that is unsure about it are those of a more traditionalist bent. This group is generally familiar with it through its popularizers. A good summary of what this group finds problematic with it, or more precisely they way it is interpreted by some of its popularizers, can be found here. Disregarding the dangers of oversimplifying, which I am wont to do at times, I would say that the way it is presented to them they believe that it goes against Church tradition in terms of modesty and purity.
The concerns that Michael J. Matt (see the previous link) summarizes were evident in the comments on an article that Hierothee pointed me to on Inside Catholic. Kate Wicker, the author of the article, writes about her overcoming her “shame” about breast feeding during Mass. As justification, she cites Christopher West as an authority on JPTG’s Theology of the Body:
Christopher West, the Catholic author best known for his insightful commentary on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, describes a nursing mother as “one of the most precious, most beautiful, and most holy of all possible images of woman.” So why should I feel ashamed nursing in church — in the presence of the Most Holy Eucharist — but not at the mall? Do I believe breasts are made to feed babies or are they just meant to be squeezed into rhinestone-clad bras for surfers to ogle on the Internet?
Kate gets what seems to me (I did not read all of the comments, much less tally them) an evenly mixed response between those who support her and those taking issue with her. In a relatively early reply (in the combox section, #27) she again goes back to Christopher West in support of her position:
An article by Christopher West is what inspired me to write this article. I’m going to take the easy way out rather than addressing everyone’s comments indvidually and share some of the article here. I also want to mention that I’m not saying we should be giving kids of all ages snacks at Mass. My preschooler is not allowed any food or drinks in Mass. We are supposed to be fasting before receiving the Eucharist and children (even those who have not made their First Communion yet) can wait to nosh until after Mass.However, babies’ wants and needs are the same thing. A hungry baby needs to be fed and cannot be spoiled by responding to his/her needs. (This may spur another debate). Also, as some of you have pointed out, nursing DISCREETLY is key. Even when I’m at the beach where women are walking around in string bikinis, I nurse so discreetly most people wouldn’t have any idea I was feeding my baby.
Still, I’m always amazed by how the idea of nursing still makes so many people uncomfortable. So without further ado, here’s an excerpt from Christopher West’s article entitled “Nursing a Sexually Wounded Culture.”
“I remember attending the Second World Meeting of John Paul II with Families in Brazil in 1997. Nursing mothers were a common sight at this international gathering. What I found intriguing, however, was that women from “first-world” nations tended to drape themselves and sit off in a corner, while women from other nations seemed to have no qualms whatsoever about feeding their babies in full view of others. I remember one woman unabashedly roaming the crowd passing all manner of bishops and cardinals with her breast fully exposed while her child held on to it with both hands happily feeding. The only people flinching seemed to be those from the northern hemisphere.
Isn’t it interesting that the part of the world producing the most pornography and exporting it to the rest of the globe has seemed to lose all sense of the true meaning of the human breast? What a commentary on the sad state of our sexually wounded culture! Breasts have been so “pornified” that we can fall into thinking that even their proper use is shameful. In other words, we have been so conditioned to see a woman’s body through the prism of lust that we find it very difficult to recognize the purity and innocence of breast-feeding.
St. Paul hit the nail on the head when he said, “To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure nothing is pure” (Ti 1:15). It is a tragically impure world that labels the purity of a baby at the breast as “gross.””
God bless!
Written by Kate Wicker
I have not followed Christopher West much at all so I do not wish to take these few decontextualized comments to characterize what very well could be a more nuanced position. So let me comment on what Kate and others seem to be getting from him.
It is interesting that Kate uses the term “shame” to characterize her initial feelings about breastfeeding in Church. Shame is in fact a central theme in JPTG’s Theology of the Body. Interestingly enough, it is not a purely negative concept for him. John Paul finds that shame serves an essential function in our fallen state.
He makes it clear that concupiscence is an ill fruit of the Fall and that this proclivity to sin will always be with us until we die. In fact, John Paul is adamant that we cannot authentically interpret our current experiences without understanding the “man of concupiscence” (the earlier translation used the “man of lust” which I find more appealing for its dramatic tone but as the translator of the updated edition points out, concupiscence is a more accurate rendering of what JPTG intends). The man of concupiscence is in a continual struggle against temptations to sin, especially sexual sins.
John Paul makes distinctions among many types of shame. He terms sexual shame the fear of being reduced by another to one’s sexual value. This is a great temptation in the fallen state. Concupiscence leads one who is exposed to those aspects of another’s body (the opposite sex for the vast majority who do not suffer from SSAD) which reveal his sexual value, to see only the sexual value and not the entire person. In seeing only the sexual value, one then reduces the other to this value. This reduction is the sin of lust when it is consented to.
John Paul says that the body’s sex reveals its spousal meaning but this meaning is nearly (but not completely) annihilated by concupiscence. Thus, sexual shame serves the purpose of trying to restore the body’s nuptial meaning. It promotes modesty. The modest person covers those aspects of his body which lead him to be reduced to his sexual value. These of course include the genitals for both sexes as well as the breasts for women which uniquely point to their sexual value as mothers, though some other secondary sexual characteristics can also be problematic. Christopher West, by the way, is correct that the sexual value of the female breast has been gravely distorted by our “pornified” culture making it not a sign of motherhood but of sexual use for pleasure (however, even if he correctly interprets his observations in terms of a trend I do not think that it is legitimate to intuit that the first world women were uniformly motivated by Manicheaism and the third world women were motivated by a healthy understanding of their bodies).
Sexual shame serves an important function with a two fold purpose. Thus, John Paul does not dismiss it as something to be overcome as some seem to infer. First, it motivates one to protect his personhood from being reduced. However, a second motivation is to protect the other person from the loss he will suffer through succumbing to temptation if he were exposed. So one is not only concerned with himself but he also has a grave responsibility for the other as well.
In his Theology of the Body, John Paul takes pains to make the distinction between the Church’s teaching on the body and Manichaeism which is a hatred for the body. He does this because he recognizes that superficially, one can interpret actions motivated by modesty for the sake of purity to be those motived by a Manichean outlook. The latter is termed prudishness or puritanism. This distinction is of fundamental importance. Without understanding it, one can fall into a category error and so misread much of John Paul’s writings.
Here is where I think the problem lies in the way many understand the Theology of the Body. They recognize that the body is good and has a good meaning but they miss the fact that concupiscence demands modesty for one’s own sake and especially for the sake of others.
Women especially have little idea, at least relying only on their own experiences, the effect that their bodies can have on men. Women in general reduce the man in his body to a use in terms of satisfying relational needs. They do not tend to experience the “testosterone rush” men must cope with when exposed to sometimes even seemingly innocuous feminine movements and gestures, much less more direct evidence of feminine value.
Men, on the other hand, tend to reduce women to their sexual value in terms of use for the sake of pleasure. Some men can experience this temptation so compellingly, that it takes what seems to be superhuman effort to resist. Our oversexed culture reinforces this temptation so greatly that, except for various disorders, this is fairly universal among men (of course it comes in varying degrees based upon temperament, environmental factors, the degree to which he has subjected himself to pornography, etc).
So what is the response to solve this problem. In the traditionalist post above, Michael Matt references a comment by Christopher West that seems to suggest that one should by some means (we can safely assume that if he is suggesting this that it be through self control aided by sacramental grace) overcome these temptations and no longer be subject to them. West references Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility:
John Paul II warned that if chastity is lived in a repressive way, it’s only a matter of time before sexual desires explode (see Love and Responsibility, pp. 170-171). I think we find here a key for understanding the sexual revolution of the 20th century. It was a ticking time bomb waiting to detonate in response to the prudery and repressiveness of the previous era.
Unfortunately, this is also what Kate seems to take from Christopher West’s statements. However, If one reads the passage cited above completely, one will see that Wojtyla makes it clear that repressiveness has the same superficial response as modesty. One still says “no”, but for a different reason. One says no to exposure to the body in its nakedness for the sake of seeing the whole person, not because the body is evil. Wojtyla understands that mistaking the body for an evil gives more “ammunition” if you will, for temptations. Thus, it is important to understand the Wojtyla/JPTG is not suggesting that we can set aside modesty.
Now we could make precisions in what John Paul the Great says about the naked body. He does find that it is possible to present it in art. He generally finds that the naked body should not be the subject of photography because there is not the ability to control the presentation of the whole person as there is in mediums like paintings, sculpture, and drawings. Nevertheless, not everyone can expose themselves to even authentically portrayed nudity in art, even if the majority can safely do so. For all of whom this might be problematic he has the obligation to avoid the near temptation to sin.
So what is the end result. I will say first, that one cannot legitimately point to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body as a defense for the decision to breastfeed during Mass. There are other issues to consider here as well to consider, not the least of which is the restraint demanded against even pure and noble, but still mundane activities, because of the solemnity of the Sacrifice of the Mass (can a bottle of breast milk substitute in this one limited case?).
Nevertheless, if someone’s prudential judgment dictates it is legitimate, after very serious consideration of the issue, one must not blithely dismiss covering oneself under the misguided notion that it necessarily implies Manichaeism or that one has no duty to safeguard the purity of others for whom such potential exposure might be a temptation to sin.
The feminine breast is a beautiful sign of motherhood, especially when a baby is being suckled. It is a shame that not everyone can enjoy such a sight without temptation. But that is the state in which we live. The man of concupiscence must be ever vigilant. He must not try to pretend he can bring back original innocence. John Paul the Great is adamant that the threshold was crossed and can never again be restored. Grace and cooperation with it through practice of the cardinal virtues is essential to self-possession, the precursor to holiness. However, this grace is given now to the man of concupiscence in a way not given to man in original innocence. We cannot forget that until we reach heaven, we are living East of Eden and shame will always be an ally.
.jpg)
A wonderful article! I linked it off my blog in love and appreciation
Comment by Brian Visaggio — July 9, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Thanks Brian!
Comment by David — July 9, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
perfect timing! my family was invited to a 4th of july party this last weekend, and my niece’s in-laws were there. one of the young(ish) mothers present nursed her child in full view of the rest of us. she was wearing 2 tank tops, trying to “hide” the fact, but it was very distracting. she switched breasts (several times) while conversing like nothing was unusual, and it was very uncomfortable for the rest of us. my nephew had to excuse himself. it would have been better if she covered herself w/a diaper or just excused herself to a private room. several of my family members have been debating this issue the last several days, so i forwarded your post to all concerned. excellent analysis … thanks!
Comment by jeron — July 10, 2008 @ 9:50 am
My wife is a big breastfeeding advocate, so I have a little different perspective on this topic. The last 30-40 years has been a pretty dismal time for breastfeeding, as working mothers and the push for formula use has taken a severe toll on the intimacy between mother and child that breastfeeding provides. There’s a movement in place to resurrect the widespread use of this (”ecological” breastfeeding being the ideal)and steps need to be taken to ensure that progress is made, for the sake of mothers, babies, and our society as a whole.
And though I agree that we have a very difficult time in our culture seeing breasts as something other than primarily sexual, that status quo is clearly unacceptable and needs to greatly modified. On one end, we can combat pornography; on the other end we can make a witness–dare I say public witness–to the primary purpose of the breast: to nourish our young and strengthen that bond between mother and child.
I must admit it was a bit jarring for me initially when my wife’s breastfeeding friends would come by and their babies would latch on in the midst of conversation. I don’t bat an eye now . . . I had to revise my thinking, which I did, and my appreciation for a woman’s body has been nourished (pun intended) because of it.
Clearly, an element of discretion needs to be implemented, especially in social circles, but I’m loathe to say that this act, which reflects the nourishment God provides for his own children, is inappropriate anywhere, even at Mass.
(I’ll try to coax my wife to post on some of the attachment issues that can arise from intermittently using bottles in the midst of a breastfeeding relationship.)
Comment by Heath — July 10, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Must have a proper read of this article..
Comment by mrs jackie parkes — July 10, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Heath,
I understand your points. A couple of thoughts: It depends upon what you mean by “public witness.” I do not think that there is anything wrong with a mother breastfeeding in public as long as the breast is covered. Some mothers dislike this for various reasons but I think most are mistaken because they do not understand the problem of temptation for men.
Again, it is not clear what you mean by “latching on.” If the breast is exposed and you do not find it a temptation then that is very good for you. However, I think that it is important not to extrapolate one’s personal experience to all men in general. As I mentioned in the article, all men are different and while for some this might be simply a matter of getting used to a “cultural taboo” so to speak, for other it can be a real temptation to sin. One cannot take it upon themselves to try to change the culture by exposing others to temptations and expect them to deal with it. Even if the goal is good, one cannot use an evil means to get to it (i.e. disregard for the purity of others).
With respect to breast feeding at Mass. One might ask why breastfeeding should be the exception? In other words, there are plenty of other analogous activities that could be substituted for breastfeeding that might make it more clear. An even more intimate activity that reflects God’s nourishing love for His people is the marital act. It is clear to that this is not an act that belongs at Mass. The “end game” of the act of nourishment is also a sign of God’s provision for people but changing a diaper during Mass is also not appropriate, though there is nothing wrong with changing a diaper.
I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns but I do not think that there is evidence that those who support this adequately address the issues of concupiscence or the solemnity of the Mass which dictate that quotidian activities must be sent aside (to the degree possible) for entering into the ineffable “already and not yet.”
Thanks for your thoughts though, I think that they are very helpful in progressing the discussion.
Comment by David — July 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
David,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. One more from me then I’ll gracefully bow out.
–Public witness
Of course I don’t mean having a breast fully exposed for all the world to see. Discretion, again, is valued.
–Temptation to sin
Some people are sexually attracted to small children; surely I mustn’t hesitate to let my son wear shorts in the summer for fear that a pedophile walking by may become tempted to sin at the sight of my child’s exposed legs? The line must be drawn somewhere . . .
–God’s nourishing love
I probably should have worded that sentence differently; this comment was to be taken peripherally. The main thrust was that I don’t think breastfeeding one’s child should be taboo anywhere (though I haven’t run down a full list of situations in my head), including Mass.
–”To the degree possible”
Here’s where another problem enters: you could most certainly make a compelling case to exclude breastfeeding from Mass, but my 3-week old children who needed to nurse every 15-30 minutes wouldn’t have been swayed. And asking a new mother, who is very likely already struggling with post-partum depression (to whatever degree), to socially isolate herself in a setting of communal worship sure isn’t going to help her emotional well-being.
The reality of this discussion is that both sides can make a good case, but in the end, I think we’re destined to come to a stalemate. Though our spiritual leaders have often upheld breastfeeding, I doubt they’ve written much on its place in the Liturgy (correct me if I’m wrong). Sheila Kippley, who has undoubtedly explored this topic more than myself, has no qualms with breastfeeding in Mass (discreetly, of course), and she has the support of many clergy also. I’m sure I could find many clergy who disagree though . . .
Thanks again for bringing this topic up for discussion; it’s important that both sides of this debate be heard and understood.
Comment by Heath — July 11, 2008 @ 8:57 am
I really appreciate this post. You raise some great questions. However, comparing breast feeding to the marital act or changing a diaper may not be appropriate. If using a bottle would be considered appropriate, then one must allow nursing to be appropriate…as long as it is discrete. The introduction of a bottle to a nursing baby can create all kinds of problems for the nursing relationship. The question that we must ask is this: “Is it appropriate for a child to eat during mass?” For a child who can wait to “nosh after mass”, the answer would be no. But what of a nursing child? Can they wait? Should they wait?
Comment by David C — July 11, 2008 @ 9:13 am
As a woman who birthed six children in 12 years, I would have been unable to attend Mass at all if I was not able to nurse on demand. Also, there is the spectacle of having other small children in the pew that are either left unattended or removed when the baby needs to be fed in the cry room. This is a MAJOR disruption during Mass. So do you start out in the cry room with 20 other children running around, eating, talking out loud and having no idea how to behave at Mass or do you sit in the pew and give your older children the exposure to the Holy Sacrament of the Liturgy in a meaningful way and feed your baby as needed? To hear the objections to feeding at Mass seems to me to be coming from a perspective of having one child every 12 years or a contracepting mind who looks at childbearing as something that is neat and controlled and plasticized. Family life is messy and not always on schedule. Babies get hungry at Mass, and mothers need to feed them.
By your mentioning that you were not sure what the term “latching on” means tells a lot about your exposure to nursing mothers. This means that the baby is on the breast. This act is not a sexual act. It is simply feeding your child, much like you would give an older child a sandwich. You have a hungry child, you fill that need by giving the child what is best for him, mother’s milk from the breast. A nursing newborn can literally eat every two hours, with the feedings taking 20 to 30 minutes each.
If more women would choose to nurse, perhaps this porn-drenched society would become one where men are less aggressive and no longer see women as an OBJECT of their sex pleasure and treat women as a whole entity made in the image of God and given the ability to feed their young as their young need to be fed.
How many mothers who nurse have you been exposed to? Would you lambast a woman for blowing her child’s nose during Mass? Nursing is no more sexual than that act of nurturing. Just because it is a liquid, it can hardly be equated with feces and urine or sperm. It is equal to blood for it’s life-giving ability and the world would have be stopped dead in it’s tracks if women were not able to nurse whenever and wherever the child requests to be fed. I’m sure when the Lord asked that the children be brought to Him, there were for sure nursing mothers in the crowd; how could there have not been? And I’m sure that the Lord did not send them to the cry room, or dirty bathroom, or hot car to feed their babies.
Comment by Elizabeth — July 11, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Elizabeth,
I do not think you have read my post or comments with sufficient care. I do not believe I have lambasted anyone. Nor have I said that I do not understand what Heath meant by “latching on.” I think that Heath’s response indicates that he understood my meaning.
Further, I have not called nursing a sexual act nor have I “compared” it to the marital act or diaper changing. However, as David C seemed to have the same impression, let me explain my intention. My point is simply that in making the argument that breastfeeding is reasonable at Mass I do not find it sufficient simply to say that it is natural, good, or even noble. These two activities are also natural, and at least one is not just noble, but very holy. However, few would argue that this makes either appropriate for Mass. In other words, perhaps this argument is a necessary condition for it being appropriate but it is not sufficient in itself.
I will admit that I am still ambivalent about this issue but your accusations against me have not provided any compelling argument that would sway me to your side of the issue. I think that greater attention to the meaning and solemnity of Mass integrated into a well thought out treatment of the issues of temptation and distractions of quotidian (albeit necessary) concerns during Mass would better serve your purpose.
For those against, the issue of the need to feed the baby and deeper consideration of concerns of damaging effects of even occasional introduction of a bottle to breastfeed babies need to be considered.
Comment by David — July 11, 2008 @ 10:38 am
It seems to me that it would be the proper responsibility of those persons who feel uncomfortable or even tempted to sin by the presence of a nursing mother nearby to move from that pew and find another seat in the church. If one is predisposed to sin or to be severly distracted merely by the sight of a nursing mother feeding her child then that person must “avoid the near occasion of sin” as the Church teaches us.
Furthermore, I feel that the solemnity of the Holy Mass is not offended by the nursing of babies by their mothers. On the contrary it only further proclaims the greatness of God. How so? Just as our Lord gave us His body to eat and be nourished so to does a mother give her very body to her children to take and to eat. This goea to the very heart of TOB that one is called by God to make a “gift of self” always and at all times. This is not just in reference to things sexual but in all our relationships in life. Mothers are making a “gift of self” there at mass. What better gift to give to the Lord to present to His Father in Heaven?
That’s all for now…you stuck a cord with me David!
Kris
Comment by kris — July 11, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Kris -
I understand that you and others are very close to this issue; however, I do not think it is reasonable to dismiss this discussion as unwarranted on those grounds.
It is true that one has a personal obligation to avoid the near temptation of sin but it is also true that we all have obligations to others not to put them in that situation. The point that I am trying to make is that the temptation issue not a narrow problem of just a few men (and I understand that it is hard for many women to appreciate it) nor do I think that it is practical that men get up and move if a mother with a young baby sits near them on the chance she might expose herself if she happens to breastfeed during Mass.
I understand the point you wish to make and I agree with you that this is a beautiful sign of self gift. However, there are many others that I have pointed out that fall into this category as well that most agree would not be appropriate at Mass. Thus, this argument, in and of itself, is not sufficient to make the case that it is appropriate.
I think that this discussion is important to have as I think that we can all be enlightened by it if we can stick to the issues–the main of which I think here are the solemnity of the Mass, the issue of temptation, and the legitimate needs of the baby and practicalities of meeting them, and avoid being offended by reading into the discussion an affront that is not intended.
Comment by David — July 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
What a lot of people seem to be missing here is my emphasis on discreet nursing. I did not make it clear enough in my article. Nor did the photograph that accompnied my article help my cause. (I did not even see the photo until my article went “live,” and no, that is not me nursing at church or anywhere else.)
I have addressed so many arguments in the past week that I’m beginning to sound like a broken record; however, I agree that in our society where breasts - whether they should be or not - have become a sex symbol, as a nursing mom I have the responsibility to nurse discreetly only because of the respect I have for men. We should support breastfeeding - especially in Mass where all of us are called to be open to life, not just those married couples in the season of fecundity - but it should be done in a way that does not seem to “make a statement” as some people wrongly assumed I was trying to do. I don’t consider myself a breastfeeding militant. I am a mom who wants to be at the table of the Lord as much as possible. Actually, the main reason I wrote that article was not out of my love for nursing or my love for breastfeeding but out of my love for Christ.
I did not have the space to mention in the article that I did not nurse in Mass with my first child. Instead, I spent about 30 minutes in the bathroom and missed most of the celebration week after week. Sometimes I snuck out to the car. I certainly didn’t try to go to weekly Mass, which I do now that I do nurse my baby at Mass if the need arises. I tried to feed my baby before Mass, but she still cried. Ironically, for those people who complained about the “distractions” of babies, I now nurse my baby before she cries so she won’t distract anyone. I also nurse in a sling or using a nursing cover, often in a back pew. So not only embrace the TOB’s view that using my body this way is good and without shame, but I also do embrace modesty. No one knows I am nursing. I have never seen any raised eyebrows. I have been told what a happy baby I have.
Another point people seemed to have missed was that I used ecological breastfeeding as a part of NFP - that means feeding on demand and not using pacifiers, etc. for soothing a baby. This form of breastfeeding - if done correctly - works beautifully in naturally spacing children. My girls are 2 1/2 years apart. I became pregnant the month I weaned my first. I call this God Family Planning. Even some of the more charitable comments didn’t seem to understand ecological breastfeeding, NFP, or baby development. Babies, especially little ones, eat frequently.
Finally, the whole idea of distractions in general bothered me on some level. As Catholics,it’s not about what we “get out of” Mass. We go to give thanks and to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. That’s one difference between us and our Protestant friends who flock to church to be inspired and uplifted. I’ve been distracted by my own children (since I’m super vigilant about keeping them in line), an off-key singer, an elderly woman with an oxygen tank. I’ve been to churches where the priest gives a long, rambling Homily or the organist is horrible. However, I have to remind myself over and over: It’s not about me. It’s about Christ and his sacrifice for us. I’m not saying a beautiful, moving Mass isn’t wonderful and something we should all strive for, but sometimes it’s not reality. I actually have a brother who is a very devout Christian who left the Church because it just “wasn’t doing anything for him.” He’s missed the point that it’s about what Christ did for us. I think sometimes all those “distractions” can serve as a reminder for us to be focusing on Christ’s sacrificial love. As St. Therese of Lisieux stated. “I have many distractions, but as soon as I am aware of them, I pray for those people, the thought of whom is diverting my attention. In this way they reap the benefit of my distraction.” So if we do happen to notice a mom nursing, let us rejoice that she is feeding her baby the way God intended, that she has overcome the obstacles to get to Mass (and there are many as a mom of little ones). Even when we see a child misbheaving or a young girl wearing a low-cut shirt, let us turn these distractions into prayers. Let us pray for grace for the parents of that defiant child. Let us pray that God will touch that woman and reveal his love to her, so that she won’t need to use her body to attact attention.
Thank you for the thoughtful post and comments. God bless.
–Kate Wicker (the evil breastfeeding heretic herself)
Comment by Kate Wicker — July 11, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Kate -
Thanks for coming by and commenting. I did read through some of the comments responding to your article and I was saddened by some comments that seemed less than charitable in assuming flawed character motivations on your part. These were unwarranted and not helpful to furthering the discussion. The supportive comments, however, often were not substantive either and seemed to miss some major concerns. It was these supporting comments, perhaps more than your article, that motivated me to try to make some distinctions in my post.
If you look at some of the comments to my post you will see that whichever side you take (and I did not think that I was taking any sides — my post was in fact more about modesty and concupiscence then it was about breastfeeding in Mass) this is an issue about which some feel very strongly. Some mothers commenting here, of whom I can normally count on for support, seemed incensed that my lack of full support indicated, as you jested, heresy on my part. In fact, Elizabeth seemed to suggest that my ambivalent position reveals me to have a “contracepting mind.”
The point you bring up about the sexualization of women’s breasts is an important one. This is certainly a significant, negative contribution to the problem of temptation. However, as I pointed out in my post, the feminine breast is also a sign of feminine sexual value, albeit as a mother. What I mean is that the sexualization is not accidental happenstance but quite sinister in origin. It is an attempt to annihilate the meaning and beauty of motherhood, a lesson our culture is fast learning. However, it is possible because of our fallen state and the proclivity to objectify the other sex (though men and women tend to objectify the other in different manners). So, what is not clear to me is what concupiscence itself, in isolation from the distortion of our “pornofied” culture, would lead to in regards to the same temptation. I do not think it certain that a cultural purification in this regard, itself would solve the problem that many men face in an inability to appreciate, in a pure way, the beauty of a mother feeding her child.
Any way, I would agree that the picture chosen for you, perhaps set a poor context for understanding your point.
I understand your point about distractions. I agree with some of what you say though I understand that this is perhaps another issue that would serve to excite similar intensity. I will agree with you that affective reinforcement is not a necessity for the personal efficacy of the Mass. Your experience with your brother is an all too common and sad one. I have said a prayer for his return. You are also correct in saying that one need not appreciate every aspect of the Mass in an aesthetic manner for the same to be true (and your caveats were well said). However, there is another aspect of the Mass for which distractions can limit personal efficacy to varying degrees and we all suffer from it. This is our distraction from our active participation, in consciously understanding and choosing to join our sacrifices with The Sacrifice which is being made present on the altar. St. Therese’s comments do not mean to minimize the problem of distraction but rather they show her solicitude for Christ in giving herself to others even in circumstances in which she is falling short of what she is being called to. In other words, it is true that we will always have distractions in our fallen state. While not as grave, they should be viewed in the same way as sin: something to be overcome and avoided rather than accepted as inevitable and in this way, minimized.
Kate - except for my comments above, I agree with everything that you have said. I especially appreciate your reasoned thinking and kind temperament in the manner in which you express your disagreement. God Bless!
Comment by David — July 11, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
I have to commend very much this post. It is fairly balanced and well thought-out, not to mention fair to all sides. I think the main issue is one of balance. While Christians should be understanding and not judge, people should also gauge a situation to see if an action will unnecessarily scandalize a brother or sister. There is no hard and fast answer to this, it is a question of discernment.
Comment by Arturo Vasquez — July 13, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I struggle so much with the negativity about breastfeeding from
so-called faithful, “traditional” Catholics because their position
seems so contradictory. They encourage young women to be pro-life and have 8 to 10 kids if they can, yet we are expected not to let anyone see us nurturing our babies. The idea that a woman should have a bunch of kids, yet have to be hidden away and not be allowed to take care of them in public seems misogynistic to me. We better feed with a bottle or only breastfeed in private. So, if I do breastfeed, I’m looking at potentially spending up to two decades hiding in closets so that I don’t offend anyone. Then, if I bring up this point, I am accused of being selfish because I am not considering the needs of others. Well, I think we ALL should be considering the needs of our young infants and toddlers. That is what seems to be left out of this “debate”. I have four children now and the more I have, the more sad and isolated I feel as I am trying to live out the teaching of being “open to life”. There is a lot of lip service, but not a whole lot of practical support from so many traditional Catholics. Being pro-life does not end at the birth of a baby and being pro-life involves caring and supporting babies AND mothers.
One last point, regarding “scandalizing” a brother or sister… can a man please come forward and admit to being aroused by the sight of a breastfeeding mother? I don’t think it happens.
Comment by Danielle — July 25, 2008 @ 10:41 am