Breastfeeding and the breast

[MiserereMeiDei]

American sensibilities are so messed up when it comes to breastfeeding.

Be that as it may, they are what they are. And to add to the problem is the plague of pornography in our culture that has infected those in the Church as well.

And that is not the blame of the mother trying to do the best thing for her child and it is certainly not the blame of an innocent hungry baby.

Nor did anyone, myself included say it was.

If one knows he is weak, then at least he should keep custody of his own eyes. Even if it means not glancing over at a woman holding a baby, if the chance she might begin to nurse the infant could cause him to stumble.

He certainly should, but then, he’s weak, isn’t he? I’m not sure why all the onus is being placed on the weaker brother. That doesn’t make sense theologically or naturally. Paul didn’t say to the weak, go and eat the meat. He told the strong, “Now we that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.”

It’s called taking responsibility for one’s own shortcomings.

Indeed and it’s quite laudable. I do find it rather odd that you don’t really seem to care about these persons’ struggles at all though. Does the pastor in your perish teach you to look down on your weaker brethren or to help them, not seeking your own gratification? I rather doubt it.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I appreciate that you are defending your wife in this but as I noted to the other person, St. Paul does not give us leave to ignore the weaknesses of our brethren for our gratification. You can insult me as much as you please, it changes nothing and nowhere have I condemned you. Giving you something to consider is not condemnation.

 

[JulianN]

Like this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JulianN]

St. Paul does not give us leave to ignore the weaknesses of our brethren for our gratification.

The bolded is important here. This has nothing to do with the mother’s gratification – it has to do with the need to feed a hungry infant.

Additionally, when does the sinner need to take responsibility for his own behavior? If he is attracted to arms, must a woman suffer in the heat because he cannot deal with short sleeves? Must she avoid sandals in summer if there is someone who has a foot fetish? Or what if someone has an issue with overeating – should we refrain from having a sandwich in their presence?

And how is she to know these things in the first place? They are all, including breastfeeding, normal activities of day-to-day living.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

If feet are a thing in a particular society that may be something to consider. In America the bare breast is certainly considered erotic. I’ll assume you aren’t from here and are thus presumably unaware of that fact.

The sinner always needs to take responsibility for his behavior, thoughts, etc. I, as a Christian, likewise need to care for my weaker brother always. It can certainly be burdensome but we do it for love of god and our brother, don’t we? As catholics we certainly know about suffering.

 

[Ghosty1981]

We needn’t merely accept the distorted view of the human body that infects U.S. culture. The sexualization of breastfeeding is not some general human norm across cultures and history, quite the opposite in fact. The modern aversion to open breast feeding in our society appears to be the anomaly.

The healthy approach would be to foster a change in this abnormal attitude rather than double-down on it. Treating open breastfeeding as scandal and incitement to lust is the root of the problem, not the solution. Young men who are raised around breastfeeding don’t have the same sexual association with it that some seem to fear they would; if we can live in a society with an open display of lips and hands then we can handle babies eating.

I think we have a pretty backwards society if we flaunt and promote the erotic view of breasts (which we do even when we treat them as parts to be always carefully concealed) while hiding away the nurturing mammalian aspect of them. This is not to say that all breast exposure is appropriate, but promoting only the sexualized perception, whether by exposure or prudishness, is indeed scandalous.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JulianN]

f feet are a thing in a particular society that may be something to consider. In America the bare breast is certainly considered erotic. I’ll assume you aren’t from here and are thus presumably unaware of that fact.

The sinner always needs to take responsibility for his behavior, thoughts, etc. I, as a Christian, likewise need to care for my weaker brother always. It can certainly be burdensome but we do it for love of god and our brother, don’t we? As catholics we certainly know about suffering.

I am definitely from ‘here.’ The problem with your reasoning is that it panders to those who cannot control their eyes or themselves. The perfectly normal and necessary action of breastfeeding causes some guy a problem? Up to the woman to cover up and make her baby uncomfortable so that the guy isn’t tempted to sin.
Feet cause erotic thoughts for some guy? Up to the woman to wear shoes.
Pretty faces a problem for some guy? The woman should wear a burqa.

At some point, the sin of oppression becomes more than any responsibility for temptation. Where do think that point is?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

That’s probably good since I don’t know who that is.

Is catholic stand more Crux or Catholic World Report or Fisheaters?

 

[JulianN]

If the Church rules on it, however they rule is that point. If they don’t, it is up to our conscience as it is illuminated by magisterial teaching, prayer, and wise council. I wouldn’t rely on feminist principles as a guide though. The Church has little good to say about feminism.

Who said anything about feminism? See the photo I posted upthread with the woman breastfeeding in the presence of the pope. This was when he encouraged women to go ahead and feed their babies. As long as you don’t see any problem with that, I think we’re in agreement.

And I don’t think we have to go as far as “if a baby is going to starve” to justify feeding him/her. The mom is sitting at Mass, the baby is hungry and cries. Note that the baby does not require the presence of a priest to feed, but the mom is supposed to be at Mass, right? And the baby goes with Mom wherever she goes. Does the mom feed the baby? Allow it to cry?

Say we choose the option of feeding and quieting the baby. This involves a minimal exposure of the curve of a breast. The guy in the next pew finds this difficult. He recognizes that his difficulty in dealing with the normal function of breasts for feeding babies is his issue and he steps out. Or moves to a different pew. Or averts his eyes. Or closes them. He has lots of options here. It’s not up to the woman to have to leave Mass or to make her baby uncomfortable in order to make his life easier.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Well, they aren’t Catholic either.

 

[babochka]

Wow. Just wow.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I don’t have a problem with him doing any of those things. I have a problem with the idea that he (“the weaker brother”) doesn’t matter which is the sense I get from the responses I read. Which makes me realize now that you may get the impression that I don’t care about the mom. I do, in fact. But there’s no shortage of advocates for her and few for him.

By all means he can do any of those things and should,
but realize that he’s doing them to mitigate against a response he’s had to the exposure. Is it reasonable for him to respond that way? No, but it’s concupiscent. He does because he is weak. Quite likely because he made himself weak through past sin. He needs help. I don’t think that’s something we should just ignore or poo-poo.

 

[JulianN]

I don’t have a problem with him doing any of those things. I have a problem with the idea that he (“the weaker brother”) doesn’t matter which is the sense I get from the responses I read. Which makes me realize now that you may get the impression that I don’t care about the mom. I do, in fact. But there’s no shortage of advocates for her and few for him.

By all means he can do any of those things and should,
but realize that he’s doing them to mitigate against a response he’s had to the exposure. Is it reasonable for him to respond that way? No, but it’s concupiscent. He does because he is weak. Quite likely because he made himself weak through past sin. He needs help. I don’t think that’s something we should just ignore or poo-poo.

I agree that he needs help and should not be ignored. I think this is a struggle for a lot of people and we should do more to help them. I just think it’s important for the person to acknowledge that they are the ones who have a problem with which they struggle, and that their first thought should not be, “It’s her fault for tempting me …”

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

You said blanket statement. Well played.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I am guessing that these folks would not be expected to deviate from their normal routine either. She is his mother, and it is her responsibility to rear him as she sees fit.

Why this mom is still breastfeeding her 9-year-old kid

A British mother has revealed how she will miss breastfeeding her daughter after the youngster finally weaned – at age 9. Sharon Spink, a mom of four, insisted that feeding daughter Charlotte until…

nypost.com

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I’ll laugh if this gets flagged, for obvious reasons. Hopefully, CA doesn’t have stricter standards than an actual Church.

 

[CRV]

Thank you for being respectful of myself.

By the time they could turn their little heads, mine would LIFT my shirt up to kingdom come while they were nursing. Sometimes they’d be eating away, hear an interesting noise, and suddenly turn away leaving a nipple exposed for a few milliseconds.

That brought a smile to my face as I do remember that occuring - and I don’t personally have an problem with that. It shows the baby is intelligent and curious about the world

Scandal can be venial or grave, and using the example you gave of cooking the parish finance books that would indeed be grave. " Scandal is a grave offence if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offence” ( CCC 2284)".

In the link I posted on What is Scandal, this priest also said "Another obvious way of committing scandal is by giving bad example, without necessarily intending to lead others into sin. This can include using bad language, dressing immodestly, praising a film that contains inappropriate material, drinking alcohol to excess, etc. This is what we mean by scandalous behaviour. A girl, or a boy for that matter, who dresses or behaves immodestly can be guilty of the sins of all those who look at them with lust or have impure thoughts or desires as a result. "

This is what I based my comments on - on what a priest in good standing said.