Theological Cases for parenting styles?

[daniellet]

OK, I am going to post the definition.
Attachment parenting (AP) defined: High touch, high response parenting. A strong physical bond is fostered through such practices as on-demand and extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping, and babywearing in a sling or lots of "in-arms" time, and few or no periods of separation. AP is somewhat flexible, as some AP parents do not employ every practice, though many do. It is believed that a strong physical connection leads to a strong emotional connection. Emotionally connected parents are well equipped to identify and respond to their children's needs. An expressed need is quickly attended to. Babies are not allowed to "cry it out" because AP parents believe that crying is not a manipulative ploy, but rather the expression of a need that should be quickly responded to. This teaches a baby trust and forms the emotional foundation for a lifetime of intimate relationships. Discipline is gentle guidance and training, not harsh or physical punishment. As they grow older, children respond to their parents' guidance because they are "connected", not because they are fearful.

 

[jc413]

Gosh, this discussion has gone off into so many different tangents.I am with the Rigby’s on several points, and this is why.

It is all well and good for someone to say they are called to AP. And if some of the parents in the AP camp (certainly not all) choose to judge those of us who do not practice AP, that’s unfortunate. And since I have friends who are, more or less, in the AP camp, I know how those who practice AP are also under fire. (You hear things like “You’re spoiling him,” “You’re letting your child manipulate you,” blah blah blah).

However, to make the blanket statement that AP is Catholic parenting is where many of us are taking issue.

I have read the theological reasoning behind terming AP the “Catholic” way. But I still don’t buy it.

If I do not practice CAP, then what am I practicing? Detachment parenting? Uncatholic parenting? Really, look at what you are implying here.

When a couple marries in the Catholic Church, they take a vow to raise their children in the faith. They don’t vow to “attachment parent.”

We are mandated, by the Church, to teach our children the faith, to provide them with a Catholic education, to avail them of the Sacraments, etc. My son is only sixteen months old, and my husband and I make it of utmost importance to surround him in our Catholic culture. We think it is SO BEAUTIFUL that he folds his little hands when we say grace, points to the Cross and says “Jeeez!,” picks up a “Ro-yay” (rosary) and kisses the Cross…

Teaching him the faith is what makes what we do “Catholic parenting.” Whether or not he sleeps in our bed, or nurses extensively, or is disciplined gently has nothing to do with parenting the “Catholic” way. That is merely a parenting style others have chosen for various reason.

I do not mean to detract from those of you who have chosen AP. Really, I don’t. But I have read several comments in the AP thread that ARE hurtful to those of us who do not fall exclusively in the AP camp. The overall implication is that those who AP “respond to a child’s needs.” That is what ALL Catholic parents are called to do, and what my husband and I most certainly strive for.

 

[kellifickel]

I’ve been reading through this thread and find it very interesting, particularly the essay on the Ezzo- style parenting that one participant gave the link to.

I am a mother of a 13 month old girl, and as a first time mother, am seeking advice and insight from as many sources as I can.
I am still bfeeding, twice a day, and just stopped cosleeping with her. I get a lot of negative comments from parents and members of my community (who are all Calvinist, I don’t know if that makes a difference,though) that I am still breastfeeding, and think my parenting is goingto spoil my daughter rotten.

Does anyone have some good AP books they could recommend for me? I have pretty much been going by extinct, blending different material i have read and advice i have been given.

Specifically, are there books ot help with this second year of life? I feel I did a good job with her infancy, but I don’t know what ot expect now.

Thanks

 

[jc413]

kellifickel:

Does anyone have some good AP books they could recommend for me? …Specifically, are there books ot help with this second year of life? I feel I did a good job with her infancy, but I don’t know what ot expect now.

You may find the “Catholic Attachment Parenting” thread more useful. And the two biggies for AP reading are “Parenting with Grace” and Dr. Sears.

Personally, I really like “What to Expect the Toddler Years” for the basics (not an AP read, but a good reference book).

 

[kirabira]

PPl are misunderstanding what I meant when I posted --CAP-- Catholic attachement parenting.
I was NOT saying this is the difinitive way to parent and therefore its “Catholic parenting”
the Catholic in the way I’m using it is a descripter of “attachment parenting” .
would it be more helpful if I had said 'attachment parenting catholic style"?
Like I statted before the reason I added Catholic to AP is because I’m not practicing it secularly, but comtemplating theological Catholic implications. I suppose you could be a Catholic Ezzo if alongside of the Ezzo style you were seeing how Catholic teachings were reflected???

Another comment- AP isnt a set of rules. It seems like people(who are not AP) may be hostile for certain AP people who they see as not being “ap enough”.
The point of AP is responding to your child’s needs, looking for a 2 way communication from birth.
things like cosleeping, breastfeeding are effects of using AP, not the cause…

I think AP ppl who assume you HAVE to be extended breastfeedint to be AP or you MUST be family bed or there is something wrong can be putting the cart before the horse?

We have also been discussing GD, gentle discipline and POSITIVE Discipline. I dont know that these things are exclusively “AP”-- they are sort of offshoots.

AP is NOT “Child Centric” as the rigbys seemed to be wondering about. --maybe I should qualify that with there could be people who take AP to being “child centric” but they way we parent we dont hover our our children, inserting ourselves into ALL of their play. In my house our children have a lot of play where they are totally independant from us, exploring something etc, maybe they can be so independant because they are secure in their environment? They know we respond to their needs; if they need us we will come =)

As far as ‘marital bed’. I cannot say that having a family bed ever prevented us from expressing martital love. You just arent expressing in the bedroom! I actually LIKE this part of cosleeping because you have to be creative, spontaeous, attentive to your spouse throughout the day-- not just relying on ‘well when we get to the bedroom tonight maybe…’

Looks like discussion is going well!!
pax tibi
K

 

[jc413]

kirabira:

PPl are misunderstanding what I meant when I posted --CAP-- Catholic attachement parenting.
I was NOT saying this is the difinitive way to parent and therefore its “Catholic parenting”
the Catholic in the way I’m using it is a descripter of “attachment parenting” .

The point of AP is responding to your child’s needs, looking for a 2 way communication from birth.

Kirabira – I have no problem with the terminology “Catholic Attachment Parenting,” and I did not take it to mean anything other than “Catholics who practice attachment parenting.” That is not what I am taking issue with.

You may not have said that AP is the “Catholic” way, but others most certainly have – namely, Popcak, in his book, and several other parents on this board.

Again, you mention that AP is responding to your child’s needs (this has been stated several times). I ask again, is this not what ALL parents are mandated to do by Holy Scripture? Is this not what the Church calls ALL parents to do? This is exactly what I pray for the grace to do daily. I guess the disagreement then lies when we are determining HOW we should respond to our child’s needs, and what those needs are.

 

[daniellet]

jc413:

Again, you mention that AP is responding to your child’s needs (this has been stated several times).

Aha, let’s define “needs”. A central point of attachment parenting is the belief that children need a strong physical connection to foster a strong emotional connection. To what extent a parent fosters the physical attachment is somewhat variable, eg maybe a mom babywears and breastfeeds, but only cosleeps a portion of the night. Another mom does all three things. Maybe a mom formula feeds, but then discovers attachment parenting. She can babywear and cosleep to foster the physical connection. Another important need of a baby that is important in attachment parenting is responding to a baby’s cries. If a parent lets their baby “cry it out” that definitely would not be attachment parenting. As more research is done in attachment theory, it becomes clear that these physical connections are important for a lifetime of emotional health and stability. You can also find support for these ideas in anthropological research. I find it odd that such parents in western industrialized nations have finally found the “right” way to parent and most other societies have been wrong. Hmmmm.

 

[daniellet]

Here is my brief theological case for “Catholic Attachment Parenting”.

The Lord keeps us physically close to him through the Eucharist. He knows we are physical creatures and doesn’t see that as a problem, but uses our physicality to draw us closer to Him. We love Him because He has first loved us. He sees us as essentially good, but prone to sin. He doesn’t expect blind obedience, He first agonizingly gave us his very body and blood and only then did he ask for our love and obedience. He was then gracious enough to set up our environment (the sacraments) so that we could remain close to Him. If we partake of His graces, I would say that our rebellion stays at a minimum and we have little need of anything more than gentle reproof.

When we use attachment parenting, our first and primary communication with them is physical. We give our breasts, we give our arms, we give our time. We don’t see our children’s physical needs as evil (or in need of training), but as how they were created and we then lovingly communicate with them in a way that is tangible to them. Our reproof is gentle. We set them up in an environment of success. If our children do rebel, we hope that they will repent and want to return to the loving, full environment that we have created for them. As they grow older and separate we hope that they internalize our values not because we “said so”, but because we “showed so”.

 

[kirabira]

ok how about…?
Those of us who are practicing “AP” combined with theological contemplation on our AP practices are doing this devotionally?

Like- Eucharist Adoration, miraculous medal, scapulars, consecrations-- we are living out a specific devotional life with our families in “ap”.

I dont think it means much if you say you arent AP. Now, I wonder about those of you who are sounding kind of hostile to AP-- but AP to me is something extra- a devotional.

 

[The_Rigbys]

It seems like AP tends to use definitions of “needs” that are taken from the social sciences, especially humanistic psychology. For example, Popcak’s book refers to Maslow’s “Heirarchy of Needs”.

web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

One could argue that the practical applications of this way of thinking, starting in the 60’s and 70’s, have had harmful effects on the Church and society. (I think that’s putting it mildly.) Even on a theoretical level, there are things that don’t make sense to me, in the light of faith.

• “Every human behavior is motivated by an unsatisfied need.” Really? Even Original Sin?
• “We need to have all our basic needs (e.g. physical security, love, esteem) met before we can act unselfishly.” If that’s so, why are there so many saints who were abused or deprived?

Anyway, this is just one example of why I’m not convinced by the “science” that’s commonly used to prove the superiority of the AP philosophy. I could give reasons why I’m not compelled by the rest of it, either (including the research from anthropology and biology, as well as psychology), but I think I’d better start paying attention to my own family for a little while.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence against a particular child-reading practice, I’d be happy to do so. And I say “against” deliberately – not to be negative, but because I think that all child-rearing methods should be considered “innocent until proven guilty.”

 

[SteveG]

You may not have said that AP is the “Catholic” way, but others most certainly have – namely, Popcak, in his book, and several other parents on this board.

I think you are taking this far to literally. First realize how most folks who say this mean it. This is more of a ‘Go team’ than a put down. This is like a Notre Dame fan (notoriously loyal) saying, ‘Notre Dame football’, is college football. It’s more of a rally cry than anything. Far from what the Rigbys suggest, this society puts APers under constant attack, not the other way around. We are normally under attack from our own families, friends who think we are weird, etc. When we encounter others with a similar outlook and parenting approach, is it so astounding that like two Irish fans meeting by chance, we would say ‘Go team!’

Don’t put too much stock in such comments coming from a AP friendly thread.

 

[jc413]

daniellet:

When we use attachment parenting, our first and primary communication with them is physical. We give our breasts, we give our arms, we give our time. … As they grow older and separate we hope that they internalize our values not because we “said so”, but because we “showed so”.

Well, those of you in the AP camp are convincing me of one thing…guess what? Maybe I am in the AP camp after all. Because I agree with so much of what you have said!! I quoted above what I agree with. I won’t go into “what I do and don’t do,” since as many of you have said, the ins and outs of AP styles vary so greatly we really shouldn’t reduce it to “extensive breastfeeding” or “co-sleeping.”

And thank you, Steve, for clarifying that I probably was taking things too literally – and, I should add, personally.

 

[SteveG]

The Rigbys:

One could argue that the practical applications of this way of thinking, starting in the 60’s and 70’s, have had harmful effects on the Church and society.

I realize that many non-AP folks believe this is some new philosophy of parenting, but it’s really not. The name may be new, but some people have always practiced this form of parenting. See Saint Terese of Liseaux’s autobiography for an example of how her parents used what we are talking about to raise a saint (no, I am not saying saints can’t be raised any other way). And this well before either Sears or Popcak ever wrote a word.
The Rigbys:

Even on a theoretical level, there are things that don’t make sense to me, in the light of faith.

• “Every human behavior is motivated by an unsatisfied need.” Really? Even Original Sin?

Frankly, this is a ridiculous criticism. The only behavior that can be in any way related to Original Sin is the behavior of Adam and Eve. For the rest of us this was ‘inherited’. ANY psychological discussion, parenting discussion, or philosophical discussion takes place within the parameters of the fall having already occurred. We are all trying to put the pieces back together after that tragic event. Any Catholic study or discussion must necessarily take for granted that it is ‘post-fall’ in nature. Had original sin never entered the world, ALL of this discussion, ALL of philosophy, psychology, and the rest would likely be moot.
The Rigbys:

Anyway, this is just one example of why I’m not convinced by the “science” that’s commonly used to prove the superiority of the AP philosophy.

Since Popcak wrote a book geared towards a popular audience, and likely wasn’t writing it to withstand the type of rigor you put to it (it’s not meant to be a scholarly work after all); I’d suggest studying Herb Ratner who may address the ‘science’ in a way more to your liking.

 

[The_Rigbys]

Frankly, this is a ridiculous criticism. The only behavior that can be in any way related to Original Sin is the behavior of Adam and Eve.

Sorry, maybe I was unclear. Let me rephrase the question.

To Catholics who believe in Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”:

Do you think our first parents, Adam and Eve, were trying to “fulfill an unmet need” when they sinned against God?

I’d suggest studying Herb Ratner who may address the “science” in a way more to your liking.

Thanks. I’ve enjoyed reading what I’ve seen of Ratner’s; he has a very poetic style. The material I’ve come across all seems to relate to the first couple of months postpartum, though. I certainly agree with having lots of close contact in those early “babymoon” weeks.

Can you point me to anything he’s written regarding babies of, say, 3 months and up? That’s where our family’s preferences start to part company with many of the AP ideas.

God bless,
Mrs. R

 

[daniellet]

The Rigbys:

It seems like AP tends to use definitions of “needs” that are taken from the social sciences, especially humanistic psychology.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence against a particular child-reading practice, I’d be happy to do so. And I say “against” deliberately – not to be negative, but because I think that all child-rearing methods should be considered “innocent until proven guilty.”

This thread is giving me insomnia. I would like to answer your post and then I’d better stop participating in this thread.

Humanism- As I’ve learned, you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Doesn’t Catholic teaching allow for the fact that there may be truth found in other “traditions”? As I’m new in my Catholic faith, I don’t know if I’m expressing this particular point correctly. I would agree that some in the AP community are secular humanists and some are very “new age”. But that doesn’t mean that the science supporting AP is incorrect.

The fact that some saints were abused and deprived is testimony to God’s ability to redeem anyone from any pit in life. That fact gives hope to those who were raised in a less than ideal, or downright abusive, environment. I don’t think that testifies to the way those saints were parented. In fact, continuing along your line of logic, doesn’t this just give us permission to do whatever we want to our children if they can turn out to be saints anyway?

The examples of the founders of La Leche League, Maria Montessori, and the Catholic AP families that I have met who believe in the dignity of children are SOLELY responsible for this formerly anti-catholic protestant to consider the Catholic faith. You will never convince me that a cry-it-out, bottle-propping, physical-chastisement-at-the-drop-of-a-hat “style” of parenting is rooted in anything other than the Calvinistic oriented view of children as “totally depraved”. So, no, I don’t want to discuss evidence against any child rearing practice. I would prefer a debate that focuses on the positives. I would prefer to hear testimonies of those who have raised their children in love, into empathetic, loving, committed, faithful adults. Or I would like to hear testimonies of those who have become more empathetic, loving, committed, faithful adults as a result of the way they are serving their children.

 

[SteveG]

The Rigbys:

To Catholics who believe in Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”:

I ‘believe’ in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Any psychological viewpoint such as this is not something to be believed, but rather may only be useful in understanding human behavior.
The Rigbys:

Do you think our first parents, Adam and Eve, were trying to “fulfill an unmet need” when they sinned against God?

I am not saying this to be obnoxious, but I just don’t get what your point is here. The entire paradigm of human behavior shifts after the fall. Of course they were not trying to fulfill an unmet need. In terms of speaking of human behavior in this way, by necessity, we (Popcak) are speaking of man in his fallen state.
The Rigbys:

Can you point me to anything he’s written regarding babies of, say, 3 months and up? That’s where our family’s preferences start to part company with many of the AP ideas.

Finding his work on the on-line can be difficult. I’ll do some research and see if I can dig you up some on-line resources from people I know who are most familiar with his work. If not, I’ll point you to where you might be able to get your hands on his works.

 

[lilder]

This may not be taken kindly, but my questions is HOW can you let a baby “cry-it-out”? I am not trying to be confrontational, but I am honestly curious. When my son cries it physcially hurts my heart. Even now when he is one, I still need to hold him when he is really crying. And I honestly do not understand someone leting their child, their baby, lay there and cry. Not for a minute, but ten or twenty or longer. I am not judging you if you do this. I am asking, how do you do it. Doesn’t it hurt you? I really would like to understand.

If you respond, then THANK YOU. Because I am in search of information here, I am not trying to start a fight or degrade anyone that does not parent the way I do. This is more on what I mentioned above about understanding some people I know.
Lilder

 

[Ham1]

Lilder,

It’s supposed to hurt your heart. It’s God’s beautiful way of telling you that it is HIS will that you pick that baby up. God the Father created Nature with a design and purpose. That feeling to nurture and soothe a crying infant is a natural and good reaction. Follow it and you are doing God’s will. Ignore it and you are ignoring His will.

 

[Ham1]

ezzo.info/Articles/neo_evangelizing1.htm
and
ezzo.info/Articles/neo_evangelizing2.htm

This is an essay that is particularly critical of “ezzo”.
So if you are looking for an explaination as to why certain Catholics see “ezzo” style as illfitting with the Catholic way you can check this out =)
-K

This is a must read and a starting point for any discussion on attachment parenting.

Great post!

 

[The_Rigbys]

SteveG:

I’ll do some research and see if I can dig you up some on-line resources from people I know who are most familiar with his work. If not, I’ll point you to where you might be able to get your hands on his works.

Thanks.

To everyone: This thread is really getting disjointed. I vote we stop posting here altogether. Any specific topics of interest (e.g. “Is it un-Catholic to let your baby cry?”) could be moved to new threads of their own.

Just my :2cents:

Mrs. R