The family bed

[SteveG]

foreverblessed:

I have seen absolutely nothing here to convince me that the family bed is nothing more than convenience.

This is far more than a convenience. This is clearly the way God and nature intended. Only in relatively modern times with the advent of large multi-bedroom homes has such separate sleeping even been possible. The idea of putting a helpless, totally dependent human being, designed by God to love and be loved, ALONE in their own room simply doesn’t make sense. Prior to modern times, the norm was that at a minimum, parents and children slept in the same room, and more usually for babies, the baby slept with mother. In most cultures this is still the norm. I have several friends from Indian, and they are regularly astounded that we dump our newborn babies into a crib in their own room. They explain that if they were to do that in their culture they would be roundly criticized as uncaring parents. This is just one anectodal example. Look around the world (outside of the relatively small western culture), and you will see that co-sleeping is the norm if for no other reason than necessity.

foreverblessed:

Children need to start learning boundaries, and the line should be clearly drawn.

I don’t think many parents using the family bed would disagree with this. And parent’s doing attachment parenting certainly wouldn’t. But can you explain why THIS is an area of boundry drawing? You simply assume that the bed is somehow off-limits. Why? While the Catechism certainly doesn’t speak to a preferred sleeping arrangement, neither does it mention the ‘sacredness’ of the marital bed they way you understand it. The marital act, yes, but no mention that the parent’s bedroom and mattress are somehow off limits.

foreverblessed:

These lines don’t need to be drawn for the 6 day old child. But, they must eventually be drawn. Cannot understand how this teaches the children boundaries.
Also, do not understand how this does not teach them that they come first, and mommy and daddy will drop anyting for them (even outside of the emergency situation). I believe that this is in line with permissive parenting, and dangerous (and I’m not referring to SIDs).

I stongly suggest that before you condemn or criticize this practice you educate yourself on this matter. You have to understand the practice in a larger context of attachment parenting (AP). You’d do well to read some books on AP so you get the ‘big picture’ of what the goals are, and why this fits so well with a Catholic understanding. I’d recommend Gregory Popcak’s book ‘Parenting with Grace’. I am not trying to convince you, just give you a source to of information you said you were looking for in this thread.

I find it uncharitable of you to make the condemnations of these practices you do without haveing first educated yourself on the matter. If you educate yourself, then still disagree, fine. But the least you could do is get the full picture before making your judgement.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

foreverblessed:

I’ll say it again, it al comes down to priorities. The children must see that your spouse comes before them. The arrangement of the proper priorities does not mean that in way, shape or form, the children’s needs are unmet. I come home from work and kiss my wife first, then the kids. The kids do not interrupt my wife or talk back to her without receiving my disapproval. She does the same for me. The two greatest gifts we can give our children is to share with and teach them our faith (especially as we grow in it ourselves), and to give them a loving model.

Again, you’ll get little argument from AP parents/co-sleepers on this. Why/How does the family bed disqualify us from doing such in our overall parenting approach?

foreverblessed:

I beleive the family bed concept merely conveys to the child that the family revolves around them.

Sorry, but sometimes the family does revolve around the children/child. If your child falls from a tree and you and your spouse run to their aid, at that moment, the family ‘revolves’ around the child, no? There are times in a child’s life where such focus is appropriate. We simply believe that at the stage in their life where they are totally dependent, that they should be close to their parent’s so that they can have their needs met in a convenient and caring way. This need not come at the expense of the spousal relationship. The two ideas are not incongruent. Please explain why you think they are? Further you say that the family bed conveys that the family revolves around the child. How? If anything, with mother father and child present, it conveys that the family revolves around…the family (which of course has husband and wife as it’s foundation).

 

[IM3RD]

Very well thought out, SteveG… and, great post, I might add.

I think we all need to understand that there are two people using the “foreverblessed” login ID, though.

The initial post was from the wife of the family, and the second post which you responded to was from her DH. In a public forum, that may not be appropriate as the two writing styles and levels of acceptance for differing opinions are pretty dramatically different.

Courtney – I would suggest a separate login ID for your DH, such as “foreverblessedDH” just to alleviate any potential misunderstandings…



Peace,
Troy

 

[foreverblessed]

So you don’t get confused, I started this forum and my husband responded last night. I think IM3RD pointed mentioned it as well. I stepped out of the house and he responded; otherwise I would have had him use our other name. As you can see, he stands strong on our belief one this issue and I sand behind him. I want to thank all of you for your posts. It is clear to me that everyone has their own parenting styles that are unique to their own family situations and work best for them.

To set the record straight, we love our children dearly, but love and cherish each other first. It sounds like many of you co-sleepers do the same, just in a different way. The truth of the matter is, that we love them so much that we choose to hold our marriage in high priority. In our minds, what better time to do this when they are sound asleep. They go to bet at 7 (they are all 3 and under) and wake up around 7. If they ever cry or fuss, we go in and hold them and rock them back to sleep. We do not put a screaming newborn in a crib in another room to ‘cry it out’. We have put a cradle in our room while I was nursing and sometime the he or she would fall asleep next to me.

I guess for us, we highly cherish and value that special time between 7 and 10 that the two of us have to spend together, alone in our own room. Not to say that this is the only quality time we spend together. This is just what works well for us and I could see no other way, for us. It seems however, that the family bed concept works great for some families, but just because we don’t practice it doesn’t mean that we are bad or selfish parents and that we don’t love our children. I would like to know how you do make that alone time, so that you can share with us and other traditionalist. Do you children go down before you do? How long do they spend in your bed. The whole family??? I can’t imagine all five of us in our queen size bed. J Maybe we do practice ‘attachment parenting’ to come degree, I stay home with the children and we parent according to each child’s needs. My intention is just to get a better appreciation for the reason’s why this seems to be such a common thing with Catholic families.

Thanks again!!!

 

[The_Barrister]

To set the record straight, we love our children dearly, but love and cherish each other first.

Might you have misstated your position on this particular issue? If so, I am truly saddened by your point of view.

On the issue of a family bed, my wife and I go to bed alone, but never wake up without at least two kids in the bed (we went to a king-sized waterbed after the first child). My wife nursed all four (obviously not at the same time…) in bed, and rarely am I awakened by any of the kids.

Being this close with the kids has strengthened our relationship with them. They’re all good kids with a well-developed ego and sense of self-worth. They are all independent but are also strongly tied to a sense of family. Forcing them out of the bed would not have made them stronger or better human beings, but may well have broken the close ties my wife and I have with them.

Have I lost some sleep or some intimate time with my wife? Sure, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.

 

[MamaAtHome]

A few of us explained in our posts how we find that ‘alone’ time. Like I said before, our children go down before we do, and I put them in their own beds/cribs then, and then move them, or they move themselves, into our bed when they are ready to nurse, or want to snuggle up to mom and dad. Obviously, we do find that intimate alone time. (baby #7 is on his/her way) I guess, in my view, sleep is sleep, intimate time is intimate time. They are not one in the same for us. And, the bed is just another piece of furniture, like the couch or dining table. While our marriage is indeed sacred, our bed is not!

We have 2 little ones that our welcomed into our bed at some point during the night now. They are 1 and 2 years old. The other children have moved into their own beds and rooms with no problems. It seems to me now, that they are ready to do so at a younger age than our first two, b/c they are sharing rooms with their siblings. Everyone sleeps beautifully in our house, except for the occasional illness or thunderstorm.

 

[SteveG]

foreverblessed:

To set the record straight, we love our children dearly, but love and cherish each other first. It sounds like many of you co-sleepers do the same, just in a different way. The truth of the matter is, that we love them so much that we choose to hold our marriage in high priority.

I don’t recall anyone on this thread questioning your love for your children. Rather it was your husbands post that condemn co-sleeping as teaching children that…

• ‘the world revolves around them’*

and

• ‘this is in line with permissive parenting, and dangerous’*

…and both of you have as much as said (see your comments above) that somehow we value our marriages less because we use such practices. Most of the co-sleepers on this thread in fact have gone out of there way to say that co-sleeping is not for everyone and that we accept differing parenting approaches.

foreverblessed:

This is just what works well for us and I could see no other way, for us. It seems however, that the family bed concept works great for some families, but just because we don’t practice it doesn’t mean that we are bad or selfish parents and that we don’t love our children.

Again, I don’t think anyone implied any such a thing.

foreverblessed:

I would like to know how you do make that alone time, so that you can share with us and other traditionalist.

It’s actually not very difficult. If the kids are asleep, that means that every other room in the house is empty and quiet. This can be anything from sitting at the kitchen table over a cup of tea and talking, to listening to some music while snuggling on the couch. I really have a hard time believing that you can’t imagine how people might make time if they don’t have their bedroom available.

foreverblessed:

Do you children go down before you do?

Mine usually go to bed around 11 pm…Seriously, I know you and your husband think Attachment Parentin/co-sleeping is ‘permissive’ parenting. But I’d reckon most folks who are Catholic and do this are far from ‘permissive’ as you understand it. My kids usually are asleep around 8pm and we have a very comforting bedtime routine which lets them know bedtime is on the way. The most wonderful thing about this part of bedtime is that our kids rarely if ever resist bed time. Since bed time is not viewed as a separation of the family, but rather a continuation of the cuddling, affection, and togetherness we share throughout the day, they have no reason to resist. There is no fear, or loniliness for them to avoid during sleeping hours.

foreverblessed:

How long do they spend in your bed.

Until they are ready to leave. Most children are ready anywhere between 2 and 5 years old depending on lots of different factors.

foreverblessed:

My intention is just to get a better appreciation for the reason’s why this seems to be such a common thing with Catholic families.

Do you know that in First Century Jewish culture it was the norm to breastfeed children until 3 years of age? You know this means Our Lady breastfed Jesus until he was well into his toddler years? Shocking, eh?
Wonder how the poor Holy Family handled this? Living in the conditions they did, they wouldn’t have had a bedroom Jesus, right? So they likely all slept in the same room.
Just a few points to consider.

 

[MariaG]

Mama at home,

You explained it perfectly:yup: . The marriage is sacred. The bed is just a piece of furniture.

God Bless

 

[darcee]

Oh I agree with SteveG.

The attitude that the babies can’t be in our bed because it cuts into our intimate time is the exact same argument I hear when people claim they HAVE to use the pill because they need to be sexually available to each other all the time for the good of their marriage.

There is a time and place for everything. Family bed won’t work for everyone (and BTW an infant should NEVER be on a waterbed) but it works for a good many people. My grandmother’s family had a one bedroom house and 5 children. The idea that a baby should be in his own bed and preferably in his own room is a creation of our modern materialistic culture. The idea that children and child rearing is an enemy to spousal intimacy is just buying into the whole culture of death.

Sorry if that sounds strong, but that is the way it is. Part of being married is being open to children. It is NOT a sideline it is an essential. Children are not an impediment that should come second, creating and nurturing new life is the essence of the marital embrace.

-D

 

[The_Rigbys]

foreverblessed:

To set the record straight, we love our children dearly, but love and cherish each other first.

The Barrister:

Might you have misstated your position on this particular issue? If so, I am truly saddened by your point of view.

Maybe it saddens you, but it’s not an inappropriate attitude for a Catholic. After all, marriage is the foundation of the family. The love of parents for their children derives from the parents’ love for one another. (cf. “Familiaris Consortio,” par. 18)

Some couples find “the family bed” very compatible with the expression of spousal love; others find it to be somewhat of an impediment. I tend to think it depends on the family in question. At the same time, though, advice such as “go to another room for your private time” raises some interesting questions.

1. What if you’ve been blessed with children of a wide range of ages? This wouldn’t be unusual for Catholic couples, especially if they got married in their early 20’s. Would mom and dad ask the teenagers to go to bed early, so they could have some time together in the living room?
2. Speaking “ethnopediatrically,” how have the vast majority of families in history addressed the need for marital intimacy? In most places and times, from what I’ve read, the average family has lived in a small cottage or hut, without extra rooms to speak of. (For instance: scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/peasanthouses.html) It seems like there’s nowhere else for the parents to go. (Except the great outdoors, which wouldn’t be too appealing in wintertime!)

I’ve seen some anthropologists’ accounts of primitive societies where the man and woman just express their love completely, so to speak, whether there are children present or not. Surely this wasn’t the case in Catholic cultures – such as medieval European homes described above – where there would have been more concern for the little ones’ innocence?

Someone, please enlighten me…

 

[darcee]

A curtain around the bed, sleeping closets, afternoon delight…

Creativity is the spark of romance

-D

 

[Princess_Abby]

To the person inquiring about a multitude of ages–my parents had a general rule that everyone, whatever age, was to be upstairs and in their rooms for the rest of the evening by 9pm (unless little ones would be joining Mom or Dad in bed, but they were put down either in Mom and Dad’s bed prior to them going to bed, or in their own rooms until my parents’ bedtime.).

This is actually still true, to this day, the only exception being when I come home (my husband and I live 1200 miles away) to visit. My sixteen year old sister, the baby of the family, is allowed to stay out until curfew (midnight), but she must get a drink of water, a snack, whatever else she needs, and get upstairs upon returning from outings with friends. If there is a problem, or my sister (or any of my other siblings who often stop at my parents house) needs to talk, then my parents of course make time for them. But we all know that after 9pm is “Mom and Dad time.”

It used to drive us nuts, especially as teenagers, but now that some of us are married and have families of our own, we see how sweet it is that they still accomodated us yet made time for each other…and they are more in love than ever.

 

[daniellet]

SteveG- Thank you for your eloquent defense of the family bed! It must be the name. My husband is “Steve G” as well and he loves the family bed!

Something I have always failed to understand is this concept of “the spouse comes first and the kids second”. I heard that alot in Protestant circles. Why is it a first/second situation anyway? The relationships between spouses and the relationships between parents and children are completely different. I see that both types of relationships come “first”, but in different ways. I think it would be more appropriate (and more Catholic) to say “family comes first” instead of prioritzing different relationships within the family in terms of significance or importance.

The family bed has been a special part of my relationship with my kids AND it has enhanced my marriage. One morning my husband actually thanked me for introducing him to the concept of the family bed. He had never really thought about it before he married me and said that under different circumstances he might have just gone along with mainstream culture.

Danielle

 

[Marie]

SteveG:

Do you know that in First Century Jewish culture it was the norm to breastfeed children until 3 years of age? You know this means Our Lady breastfed Jesus until he was well into his toddler years? Shocking, eh?
Wonder how the poor Holy Family handled this? Living in the conditions they did, they wouldn’t have had a bedroom Jesus, right? So they likely all slept in the same room.
Just a few points to consider.

I have no clue where the concept of Family bed came from. I must admit I find it quite weird but then that is just my opinion. Our Lady did place the baby Jesus in a Manger (feeding Trough,) so I don’t quite buy the everyone always shared a bed theory and it’s biblical.

Oh Well, to each his own. If it suits you and you think it is wonderful, fine. Meantime, take care to not roll on the babes please. Three dead babies of friends who were into innovation and togetherness sharing the family bed are enough pain, sorrow and aggravation for my lifetime.

All the togetherness in the world cannot bring back a dead child.

 

[The_Rigbys]

daniellet:

Something I have always failed to understand is this concept of “the spouse comes first and the kids second”. I heard that alot in Protestant circles.

As I understand it, it’s: God first, then spouse, then kids, then everyone else.

Why is it a first/second situation anyway?

Because marriage is a vocation; because it’s a sacrament; because it’s a symbol of the covenant between Christ and the Church. All of these things remain true, even if the couple isn’t blessed with children.

The sacred order is reflected in the natural order of events: first comes marriage, then come the children. (Well, some people get it backwards…which is why there’s such a market for maternity wedding gowns! )

Have you read “Familiaris Consortio”? It explains this much better than I ever could.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

The family bed has been a special part of my relationship with my kids AND it has enhanced my marriage.

I’m glad it’s working out so well for you.

 

[darcee]

But you can’t get married unless you are open to parenthood. You can’t get married just to spend more time alone together.

-D

 

[daniellet]

The Rigbys:

Have you read “Familiaris Consortio”? It explains this much better than I ever could.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2FAMIL.HTM

I’m glad it’s working out so well for you.

Yes, I have read it and I love it. This is one of the first documents I read when considering converting to Catholocism. This document showed me that the Catholic church understands the truth, beauty and sanctity of the family. There is nothing even close to this understanding of marriage and family in Protestantism, imho.

But, I don’t see that we order family relations in a first, second, third order etc. from this document. I know that children come from the marital union, but that doesn’t mean that their needs are secondary. The needs of a spouse and the needs of children are quite different. Again, this idea of ordering or “putting children in their proper place” is much closer to a Protestant understanding of the family.

I can just hear Mary saying to Jesus “not now honey, your dad comes first”. As a matter of fact, Mary and Joseph remained celebate in their marriage. Wasn’t that putting Jesus (the child) ahead of the marriage? Aren’t we to model ourselves after the Holy Family?

 

[darcee]

That is my issue as well only better stated.
I couldn’t care less if someone wants to family bed or not. What it is of a concern is preaching the idea that a family should have their priorities in line and that means

1.God
2.Spouse
3.Children

If that hierarchy worked then what God/the Church demanded would always trump the spouses wants and what the spouse wants would always trump the children. While I agree completly that God is number one and always trumps the spouse I disagree that the children alway come after the spouce. That just doesn’t work for us. We view ourselves as one flesh, that one flesh is responsible for raising these little ones God has blessed us with.

-D

 

[Konig]

John Higgins:

I’ll try to find a quote, but I know I heard Dr. Ray recommend against this.

My thoughts: How and when will a child learn to sleep alone?

John

I have never seen one sleeping w/ his parents at age 18. Why is learning to sleep alone important? Everyone figures it out eventually, much like toilet training.

 

[SteveG]

The Rigbys:

Because marriage is a vocation; because it’s a sacrament; because it’s a symbol of the covenant between Christ and the Church. All of these things remain true, even if the couple isn’t blessed with children.

But the normative end of the sacrament is the begetting of life. The children are the natural result of the one flesh union of husband and wife. They are the physical manifestation of their love.

The anology of Christ and the Church is a good one. So, let’s take it a step further. Christ is the Bridegroom, the church the bride. So who are the children in this case? I think the answer is obvious. We are the children. We being the members of the church. So the logical question is, does Christ love the church MORE than the individual members? Does he love the spouse more than the children? But that wouldn’t seem right, would it? Certainly, the foundation for the faithful in that anology is the ‘marriage’ of Christ and the Church, but not at the expense of the their children.

The distinction which is being made in which spouse and children are prioritized seems faulty. We are called to give ourselves away to our spouse, and part of that giving away is a giving away of ourselves to the children we co-create with them (even the act of co-creation is a giving away of a part of ourselves). The two are tied together as they are in the anology of Christ and the Church. The reason Christ died for the Church was to bring eternal life to her children. This doesn’t seem to allow for an understanding where the children are prioritize as ‘lesser’ than the marriage. Subject to their authority, yes. Built on the foundation, yes (and certainly care must be taken that the foundation remains solid). But prioritized lower? That seems to be going to far.
The Rigbys:

The sacred order is reflected in the natural order of events: first comes marriage, then come the children.

I think you are confusing sequential ordering (first you get married, THEN you have children) with right ordering of relationships. The one says nothing about the other, and I can’t see how Familiaris Consortio indicates that once children are in the picture we are supposed to put spouse and children on a priority list and ‘rank’ them.

Let’s even take a look at the order of God–>Spouse–>children. How does the Lord command us to love him? It seems to me, he commands us to show our love for him by how we love our neighbor, right? Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strengh AND love your neighbor as yourself. Isn’t that the command? We ‘prove’ our love to God primarily in how we fullfill the second part of the command. They are tied together. We are even explicitely told this is how we will be judged. Whatever you do the the least of these, you do unto me.

OK, now let’s push that down a level. How do we show our love to our spouse? One primary way is that we love the children we have with them. A big part of showing our love to our spouse is for caring for, raising, disciplining, teaching, loving, etc. the offspring of our union. At each level in this heiarchy, the actions of showing love are so tied together that drawing distinctions as has been done so we can compartmentalize them seems invalid