The Couple To Couple League For Natural Family Planning
 |
| Home |
| Class Schedule |
| Teacher Couples |
| About NFP |
| Benefits |
 Resources |
| Volunteer |
| Member Services |
| Resources | Parenting
Growing Families International: A Theological Critique |
| By John Kippley
Introduction Most of the Christian criticism has come from Protestants who make it clear that they too accept the Bible as the sole rule of faith. They then go on to argue that the Ezzos and GFI are going far beyond what is in the Bible; they find no textual basis in Scripture for the Ezzo's primary and most controversial assertions about child care. Strangely, when confronted with this sort of thing in interviews, Gary Ezzo agrees! I share this interfaith concern and certainly can empathize with what a Protestant critic has noted, namely, that the Ezzos' use of Scripture is forced and frequently irrelevant. I found myself looking up their scriptural references and repeatedly finding a tenuous or no relationship to the matter at hand. The Ezzos have set themselves up prominently for theological criticism. They have dared to label one of their books Growing Kids God's Way. There is a recurring emphasis that they and their followers have a biblical mind-set and that their practical recommendations are firmly rooted in Sacred Scripture. In this paper, I will first summarize my findings which are extremely similar to the conclusions of Protestants who have been vocal in their criticisms. Then I will explain these findings more fully. Much longer and more complete critiques have been written. Some include medical as well as theological criticism.1 If one thing is clear to me from a theological perspective, it is that the Ezzos fail to establish themselves as worthy of belief regarding biblical insights into child-rearing. 1. The Ezzos' acceptance of contraception is erroneous and without basis in Scripture.2 Their serious misinterpretations of the Bible and their pointedly ignoring the Christian Tradition against unnatural forms of birth control ought to set every knowledgeable Christian on guard against believing them about matters that are biblically less clear. 2. The program should be labeled Growing Kids the Ezzos' Way. There is no biblical evidence to support the inference that the Ezzos' "let the baby cry it out" philosophy or any other distinguishing part of their program is "God's way" of rearing children.3 Still, the Ezzos resort to a simply outrageous use of Scripture to try to support their cry-it-out philosophy. Because the common English translation of the Bible uses the word "cried," they dare to refer to Matthew 27:46 in this context. "Jesus cried out with a loud voice, . . . 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me?'." Amazingly, they use this text as justification for parents not to respond to their crying infants, noting that the Father did not respond to the cry of Jesus by taking Him off the cross. While admitting that Matthew 27:46 does not "prove" that parents should not respond to the cries of their children, they still cite it as supporting their views. 3. Their program claims to build a biblical mind-set, but the term remains undefined.4 To this Christian, "biblical mind-set" means thinking and acting with the mind and heart of the self-sacrificing Jesus Christ. I found nothing of this nature in the Ezzos' total-control dogma that caters instead to parental convenience. 4. Their emphasis on the completeness of a marriage without children and without any natural inclination or God-given obligation to have children is erroneous and without basis in Scripture.5 5. The entire program of detailed instructions about time between feedings,6 time spent in the playpen,7 and time spent sleeping8 is without basis in Scripture. If a couple chooses to follow such an unscientific program, they should not believe that there is a biblical basis for it because there is not. 6. The Ezzo denial of God-given instincts in human babies and adults is without any foundation in Scripture.9 7. The Ezzo emphasis on the depravity of newly born children is exaggerated.10 It is not balanced by an equal attention to the depravity of adults who have to contend not only with the effects of Original Sin but also with the effects of their own sins. Sorry if you don't like the term "depravity," but that's the language used by the Ezzos to describe babies. 8. The Ezzos are prejudiced against primitive cultures.11 They reject efforts to learn about child care from such cultures because such cultures aren't Christian - as if the Western culture of death can be called Christian. 9. The Ezzos give the distinct impression of having prior conclusions and then looking for some biblical quotes to attempt to justify them. Also, while sometimes starting with premises with which all Christians agree, they have a habit of drawing conclusions that do not flow from the premises. For example, from the premise that God is the God of order, they attempt to justify baby-care schedules arranged for parental convenience. Yet when pressed, they state that the Bible is silent on such matters. 10. The alleged battle for control between infants and parents has no basis in Scripture. 11. The implied allegation that all advocates of attachment parenting ignore Original Sin is erroneous.12
Point by point 1. The Ezzo/GFI acceptance and promotion of contraception is wrong and without basis in Sacred Scripture. Their acceptance of unnatural birth control is described in a 1993 GFI book titled Birth by Design (hereafter BBD). It is authored by a group of seven women including Anne Marie Ezzo. One is a doctor, one is a midwife, and the others are nurses. The "Introduction" states: "Birth by Design is [a] philosophical and theological treatise addressing issues related to childbearing." (Hereafter page numbers occur in parentheses after direct quotations.) The errors start early. In Chapter 1, "History and Philosophy of Birth Practices," BBD states: "The Hebrew nation regarded children as a blessing, yet allowed certain methods of birth control" (4). No biblical text is cited. No wonder. That's a grave misstatement. There is nothing in the Bible that allows certain methods of birth control. On the contrary, the only time there is any direct mention of birth control is in the Onan account (Gen. 38:6-10), and Onan is killed directly by God for his use of withdrawal, an unnatural form of birth control. This was the universal interpretation of the Onan account until just recently.13 For example, St. Augustine was joined by Luther, Calvin, John Wesley and many others in seeing Onan as being punished for his sin of contraception.14 Furthermore, the next closest mention of anything directly related to family planning is Leviticus 15:19 and 28. The interpretation by Orthodox Jewry is that Leviticus here calls for abstinence during the days of menstruation and for the next seven days.15 That would, of course, normally result in the couple beginning to have relations at the most fertile time of the cycle, a plan well designed by the Author of the Bible to build up the children of Abraham as quickly as possible. Chapter 2, "Changing Roles and Relationships," starts with a restatement of one of the Ezzos' recurring themes. "The greatest influence on one's children comes not from one's role as a father or mother but as a husband or wife. That basic biblical truth has been forgotten and even rejected by parents today. The result is a society that is consumed with child-centeredness" (13). Let's start with the last statement first. How can any observer call contemporary two-child American society "consumed with child-centeredness"? This is the society that packs an ever-increasing percentage of its children off to daily day care. In a survey released just before Mother's Day, 1997, only one in four "working mothers" said she would stay at home to raise her children if she had the choice.16 In other words, three out of four working mothers would still work outside the home and have their children raised by others even if they had no economic need to do so. Pragmatically, that's understandable. Office work is so much easier than "home" work. Office job descriptions are carefully limited while parenting responsibilities are open-ended. The employee of two years who says "No" may get fired; the two-year-old who says "No" still has to experience caring love. The point is this: how can a culture be called child-centered when three out of four working women actually prefer not to raise their children? Regarding the first statement, I know of no one who would not agree that the quality of the spousal relationship is critical for the children. The Marriage Encounter movement has been preaching this truth for years and years. Therefore, it is simply erroneous to say that this truth has been forgotten or rejected. However, that does not mean that everyone who accepts that truth will agree with the speculative conclusions which the Ezzos draw from the basic premise. The authors of BBD quickly proceed to tell us that "the husband needs to romance his wife and occasionally take her away from those things that so easily distract her" (19). And what are these things? The next sentence makes it clear: the baby! So who takes care of the baby? BBD doesn't say, but obviously it has to be a baby-sitter who will not be able to respond to the baby's need to be breastfed or to be held by his mother. Naturally, there are no Bible texts quoted to support getting away from your baby. That's just a non-biblical belief that's very popular in a society that is adult-centered, not child-centered. I realize that many Christians share the belief that it's appropriate to get away from their babies. I do not intend to argue the merits of leaving one's baby for the convenience of the parents. However, those who choose that path should realize there is no support for such activity in Scripture. On the other hand, I am not aware of any direct condemnation. It is a cultural thing, very prominent in Western culture, a culture that Pope John Paul II calls "the culture of death." However, it was probably so unknown in the biblical culture that it didn't have to be criticized. In Chapter 8, BBD addresses "Conception Control and Other Ethical Issues." In a section on applying principles, the authors start with three errors in the first three sentences. A) "In considering birth control as a biblical moral issue, the heart of the issue is motives, not methods." B) "The Bible is in fact silent about both." C) "We know historically that God's people considered having children to be a blessing, while at the same time practiced some forms of birth control without God's condemnation" (89). A) The emphasis on motives rather than methods applies only where the activity to be done is morally neutral, such as picking up a knife. A person can pick up a knife to butter his bread, or he can pick it up to stab his neighbor in the back. Here the motive gives the morality to the otherwise neutral activity. However, human sexual behavior is not morally neutral; it has divinely established purposes.17 The emphasis on motives regarding sexual behavior is common among religious and sexual liberals and has contributed greatly to the entire sexual revolution and to the acceptance of abortion. The principle put forth here by the authors of BBD is simply a false principle. B) The Bible is not silent about the overall issue or methods of birth control. Regarding family planning in general, the overall biblical emphasis is on generosity in the service of life. The first commandment in the Bible is "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it. . ." (Gen 1:28). Psalm 127 with its full quiver wording and Psalm 128 with its fruitful vine theme are the usual texts cited to support the overall call to generosity. This theme is continued in Catholic teaching which, however, certainly allows natural family planning when a couple has a sufficiently serious reason to avoid pregnancy. For more on these matters, see Chapter 16 in the Fourth Edition of The Art of Natural Family Planning.18 C) As mentioned previously, it is simply false to say that the Jews "practiced some form of birth control without God's condemnation." There is no basis in the Bible for such a statement. Let us return to Psalm 127. The authors' distortion of this psalm is absolutely amazing. According to BBD, "Psalm 127 teaches that a good marksman has his quiver filled only with as many arrows as he can deliver to the mark."(90). Again, "Remember Psalm 127: The size of one's family is to be directly related to one's skill as a marksman in aiming those children back to God" (91) (emphasis added). It may be that some couples think that they have reached the limit of their ability to parent additional children in a godly way. However, there is absolutely no basis for that sort of thinking in Psalm 127, the latter half of which reads as follows: "Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." I have frequently seen providentialists quote Psalm 127, and I think that some of them carry its obvious generosity theme too far, but how in the world can anyone find in these words a basis for birth control? And how can Christian parents trust people who engage in such a striking distortion of the Bible? GFI in general and BBD specifically are openly in favor of using unnatural forms of birth control that are not abortifacient, although even here the authors get their facts mixed up. "There is no moral distinction between natural and artificial means of contraception" (90). "Biblical ethics give . . . the freedom to use some forms of birth control" by which they mean unnatural forms of birth control. That's the authors' erroneous opinion, but they certainly cannot and do not allege any biblical basis for it. They pointedly ignore the fact that up until 1930 no Christian church dared to teach in such a manner that contradicts the previously united Christian Tradition which held that the Bible does not give freedom to use unnatural methods of birth control. What about those who say that the Bible teaches that contraception is wrong?19 The BBD authors neatly categorize them as "postmillenialists." "Most who are currently speaking out against man's interfering with fertilization start with a postmillenial presupposition" (91). Note the clever wording: "Most...currently..." The "most" avoids the fact that none of the Catholic defenders of traditional Christian teaching can be pigeon-holed as some sort of millenialist (and I suspect there are many Protestant defenders who would strongly resent such a classification). The word "currently" avoids the entire biblically-based Christian Tradition, unbroken before 1930. BBD simply writes off anti-contraception beliefs as unworthy of consideration: "The postmillennial viewpoint and its attending assumptions about birth control arise from unsound practices in interpreting Scripture." Isn't that neat? The authors refuse to confront the fact that Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and a constant stream of Protestant theologians up to the present day have interpreted the Onan account as condemning unnatural forms of birth control. They just put their critics in a box, label it pejoratively, and say we can ignore them because they don't understand the Bible. BBD explicitly and erroneously approves of using some forms of the Pill. The authors state: "There are two types of pills. One is higher in estrogen, which suppresses ovulation, so there is no egg to be fertilized. That is ethically acceptable since it prevents conception from taking place"(93). Wrong again, even on the biological data. Every form of hormonal birth control renders the uterus hostile to implantation. The higher estrogen pills may inhibit ovulation most of the time, but they still allow breakthrough ovulation about 5% of the time. Since hormonal birth control methods do not have an unplanned pregnancy rate of 5%, their high birth control effectiveness is due to other effects. The early abortion of the conceptus by not allowing implantation in a hostile uterine lining cannot be ruled out. The Ezzos' opinion that they can biblically justify the use of unnatural forms of birth control is enough to disqualify them as interpreters of Scripture. This alone should be enough to discredit them in the eyes of those who want to develop and live by a biblical mind-set. However, there is much more. 2. The entire GFI program should be called Growing Kids the Ezzo's Way. In a critical article that appeared in Christianity Today, there are two especially interesting paragraphs. "Ezzo says he did not want to create the impression that his is the only biblical approach to parenting. 'There's no biblical issue governing feeding babies. It's an area of freedom.' "However, Preparation for Parenting [a basic part of the Ezzo program] paints another picture, saying, 'Working from a biblical mind-set and practicing demand-feeding can never be harmonized since the two are incompatible philosophies.'"20 Rebecca Prewett intensively researched the GFI material and attempted to establish a dialogue with the Ezzos. She has noted a distinct discrepancy between what the Ezzos write and what they say. She quotes as follows from a radio interview by Rich Agozino with Gary Ezzo.21 The interviewer stated, "In the area of Bible understanding, the presentation. . . in your curriculum [of] the Scriptures that you use to undergird the authority of what you have to say. . . some people do have some problems." He then quoted from a letter written by Focus on the Family: "At the very least, the authors' claim that their particular program represents the one and only correct and Biblical approach to parenting seems to us unnecessarily narrow."22 Mr. Ezzo responded: ". . . God gives us principles in His Word. But apart from that, there are no exact how-to's, there is no blueprint to parent. There is nothing in Scripture that speaks about feeding babies. Whether you feed them on a routine, whether you feed them on a hyper-schedulist model, whether you feed 'em on a free feed, cry feed, or demand feeding - there's nothing in Scripture about that. And therefore, what you have is you have freedom from that point on." Mrs. Prewett adds a footnote at this point: Somehow, the Ezzos have failed to communicate this freedom to those followers of theirs to whom I have personally spoken. Judging by the letter from Focus on the Family, they failed to communicate this to them. They failed to communicate this to me and to others I know who have studied this curriculum for over eighteen months.23 The point is this: The Ezzos criticize demand nursing and advocate what they call parent-directed feeding. However, the Ezzos admit that there is no basis in Scripture for either their criticism of demand nursing or their advocacy of parent-directed feeding (PDF). 3. The Ezzo program does not develop or build upon an authentic biblical mind-set. The first thing in a biblical mind-set for any Christian must be the cross. It is the most visible symbol of the Christian faith in the broadest sense of that term. It is the symbol of redemption. Jesus has clearly taught that if anyone wants to be his disciple, he must take up his cross daily and follow Him. I find nothing of this mind-set in the Ezzos' program for parenting. At the practical level, a primary purpose of the PDF effort is to provide convenience for the parents. There is no question that responding to a baby's cries with comforting takes effort and can be a cross. Such response is not part of the Ezzos'' program - unless you call checking in on a crying baby every 15 minutes "comforting." On the other hand, I've been told that some Ezzo-type parents regard their not comforting their crying child as the big sacrifice. Granted, there are times when parents have to suffer through the complaints of an older child being disciplined in some way. But refusing to comfort a baby whose cries always indicate some real need? Call it what you want; but please don't claim that it has a basis in Christian theology. How would you react if someone told you that the priest and the Levite in the Good Samaritan parable were really making a big sacrifice, that it hurt them deeply to do nothing about the injured man but they just had to teach him a lesson? The next part of a Christian biblical mind-set is service. At the Last Supper, Jesus washed the feet of his apostles, and He specifically told them that this was by way of example (Jn 13:15). He also taught them not to lord it over those subject to authority. "Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves" (Lk 22:26). The Ezzo style of parenting is one of total parental control. I fail to see in this either the cross or service. Everyone would agree that love has to play a part in the development of a Christian biblical mind-set, but what is love? In his famous discourse on love, St. Paul starts with patience and kindness and ends with long-suffering. Halfway through, he teaches that "love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful" (1Cor 13: 4-7). In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus teaches us to respond here and now to the real needs of those who need our help, even if they aren't consciously or directly asking us for help (Lk 10:25-36). Admittedly, applying biblical principles about love in general to a specific area such as child care is fraught with difficulties. However, some things can be said. Babies have real needs beyond nutrition and diapering. Babies have real needs to be held, real needs to be in physical contact with their mothers. It certainly can be argued that responding to the cries of a baby is simply putting love into action. When Jesus taught us, "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40), He did not add, "This doesn't apply to babies." It certainly cannot be sustained that such response to the cries of a baby is somehow unbiblical or the result of some neo-pagan philosophy. The Author of Nature endowed babies with only a few ways of communicating, and one of them is crying. The idea that responding to the cries of a baby by picking him up is somehow contrary to a biblical mind-set simply boggles the imagination. It is equally strange that anyone can think that responding to a baby's needs to be held can be considered somehow not in line with a biblical mind-set. Yet the Ezzos teach that "Some crying is a normal part of a baby's day."24 They go on: "Crying for 15-20 or even 30 minutes is not going to hurt your baby physically or emotionally, especially if the cry is a continual start-stop cry. He will not lose brain cells, experience a drop in IQ, or have feelings of rejection that will leave him manic-depressive at age thirty."25 Such dogmatic certainty is surprising from someone who is speculating. New studies show that stress from maternal deprivation can cause infant brain cells to die. Animal research has shown that "the neurons in the neglected animals died at twice the rate as those animals kept with their mothers."26 One researcher clearly stated, "Maternal separation caused these cells in the brain to die."27 He went on to say: "Does this have implications for humans? Frankly, I hope not, but I suspect there may be." The article then went on to state: "Scientists have known for decades that maternal deprivation can mark children for life with serious behavioral problems, leaving them withdrawn, apathetic, slow to learn and prone to chronic illness." Further, it will be obvious to anyone who thinks about it that any negative effects from early childhood deprivation will range from mild to severe. Therefore, there can be significant feelings of rejection that do not result in the manic depressive state. I am told that the Ezzos completely reject animal research. Such rejection is neither biblical nor scientific, and it cuts one off from an important source of information. The Ezzos may be as far off base on child psychology as they are on theology. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to indicate that carrying out the demands of love is easy. Parenthood makes such demands. Parents who respond to the real needs of babies to be fed when they are hungry according to their expressed feelings and cues are acting with a biblical mind-set. Parents who respond to the needs of their babies to be held and to be with them are also acting with a biblical mind-set. The bigger question is, what is the mind-set of those who would write or teach in such a way as to discourage parents from meeting the real needs of their babies? What is the mind-set of those who teach that "if you want a fussy baby, never let him cry, and hold, rock, and feed him as soon as he starts to fuss."28 An opposing view has been expressed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.29 4. The Ezzos' emphasis on the completeness of the "family" of husband and wife alone is non-biblical and erroneous. No person of the Bible will dispute that the marital union of Adam and Eve constituted the first social unit, but no person of the Bible can deny that the first commandment of the Bible is "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gn 1:28). That Adam and Eve didn't have children before the Fall has no bearing on the question of the completeness of the family. The Bible also doesn't say that they had sexual relations before the Fall. The absence of any positive statement about such things is not an argument for marital celibacy. Fortunately, Jesus didn't leave us just a book subject to every possible interpretation and misinterpretation. He left us the Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), and nearly 2000 years of Catholic teaching leaves no doubt. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. . . Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. . ."30 (emphasis added). 5. The Ezzos' feeding and child care program clearly has no basis in Scripture. Gary Ezzo admits this at least concerning child feeding. Yet the Ezzos try to give that impression. Why else would they call one of their books, Growing Kids God's Way? However, there is one aspect of child care that definitely is God's way, and that's the baby spacing that occurs naturally when a mother engages in the frequent nursing called "ecological breastfeeding."31 There is no scientific doubt that for eons this has been the method of spacing babies every two to three years in breastfeeding cultures. There is no scientifically founded doubt that modern mothers can and do "ecological breastfeeding" and also experience an average of two year spacing without fertility awareness or periodic abstinence.32 This isn't just accidental. This is by the design of the Creator, even if it's not spelled out chapter and verse in Scripture. The Ezzos clearly admit that their method of child care interferes with naturally spacing babies through breastfeeding (BBD 89-94). It is certainly disappointing, therefore, to see them infer that their way is "God's way" when it so clearly contradicts what is obviously "God's way" of keeping mother and baby together and providing a natural spacing. The Ezzos claim that 89% of their mothers breastfeed.33 However, the big question is, "How many of them are still nursing at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months?" We know that a few women in the GFI program are still nursing at one year postpartum, but such women are rare. A caller to the headquarters of The Couple to Couple League (CCL) mentioned she had a number of Ezzo-friends in the states of Texas and Washington. When asked how long her Ezzo-friends nursed, she replied, "Not one nursed past 3 months." The Ezzos believe there is almost no value to nursing after 9 to 12 months.34 This is neither biblical nor scientific. In the Bible we have two references to extended nursing, and there is nothing to indicate this was not the ordinary thing. In 1 Samuel, we read about Hannah who promises the LORD that if He removes her infertility, she will give her first-born son to serve the Him. After she conceives and gives birth, she presents him to the prophet Eli only after she has weaned him. We are told that "the child was young" (1:24) and that the boy ministered to the LORD (2:11). Having some experience with young children, I cannot imagine that such weaning took place before Samuel's third birthday, and it well could have been at age four or five. How does a child any younger than that minister to the LORD? In 2 Maccabees 7:27, the mother of the seven martyrs specifically reminds her youngest son, "I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years." I submit that this biblical practice was in the best interests of the children. This gives us a biblical basis for thinking that there is real value to nursing beyond 9 or 12 months. The Christian mother will also not want to ignore the fact that the Pope, whom even many non-Catholics recognize as the spiritual leader of the world, has adopted the breastfeeding recommendations of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. These now call for exclusive breastfeeding for six months and supplemented breastfeeding for 24 months or more. Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) calls for all women to breastfeed exclusively for six months, then to breastfeed with the gradual addition of iron-enriched solid foods for the rest of the first year, and to continue breastfeeding for as long as both mother and baby enjoy it.35 In addition, one breastfeeding research report after another shows that unless a mother does ecological breastfeeding or something very close to it, she simply won't be breastfeeding for very long. In most cases of rigidly scheduled feedings, she will simply lose her milk supply. The Ezzo-GFI program is not in tune with the scientific data about breastfeeding. 6. The Ezzos strangely deny that God has given instincts to human persons. There is, of course, no place in the Bible that the Ezzos can quote for such a non-biblical Ezzo dogma. However, the denial of instincts in general enables them to deny that a mother is following God-given instincts in wanting to pick up her crying baby. If there are no instincts, then it is not instinctual for a baby to root and suckle when it is hungry or to cry if it has some need to which a parent ought to attend. Such denial of instincts puts the Ezzos in a world of their own. To the extent that they give the impression that the denial of instincts is somehow part of a biblical mind-set, they also bring discredit upon the Bible and the Christian faith. 7. The Ezzos denial of God-given instincts fits in well with their description of babies as depraved. Granted, all of us suffer from the effects of Original Sin, and adults suffer also from the effects of their own sins. The combination of denying God-given instincts and regarding babies as seriously inclined to evil supports their program which sets up an imaginary conflict between baby and parents from Day One. In the Ezzos view, the crying baby is not carrying out a God-given instinct for getting needed attention but is somehow seeking to control the parents. Therefore the parents must respond by making sure that they have total control of the baby's eating and sleeping patterns and later playing habits. It is easy to see how total-control parents can become frustrated by potty training; let us rejoice that GFI doesn't recommend using laxatives so parents can also be in total control of the baby's defecation pattern as some total-controllers recommended in the first decade of the 20th century. No Christian will deny that children need to be educated, trained, disciplined, and discipled. At the same time, the Ezzos emphasis on the "depravity" of the infant and their hypothesis of baby-parent control conflict finds no support in Sacred Scripture. It is just another example of private interpretation gone awry, another illustration why Jesus did not leave us just a book but gave us a living teaching authority in the Church. 8. The existence of the natural law and its knowability by men and women is clearly taught in Sacred Scripture. The classic text is Romans 1: 18-23 which includes this remarkable passage: "For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" (19-20). However, the Ezzos deny that we can learn anything from primitive cultures because, supposedly, those folks aren't Christian. This perspective illustrates both ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Many people in primitive cultures have been Christian for a long time. In the Couple to Couple League we have had contact with native African Catholics for over 20 years, and we have come to respect their culture. The mother-baby closeness the Ezzos criticize is just taken for granted in the older African culture, and this includes many people who are no longer "primitive." Even if the people in a given culture have not been Christianized, that does not mean that they are not living in many ways according to the natural law. When anthropologists find that mothers in primitive cultures nurse their babies frequently, keep their babies close to them with slings and papooses, and have happy babies and contented children, this cannot be written off as "bad" just because the Ezzos declare that Western Christians have nothing to learn from relatively primitive non-Christians. It may well be that these people are closer to some aspects of the natural law than are their overly sophisticated, less child-centered Christian cousins. Let us never forget the Guyana self-massacre in which the followers of one James Jones killed their children and committed mass suicide. These folks weren't primitive natives. No, these were American Protestants who carried the principle of private interpretation to a horrible extreme that apparently was consistent with their own interpretation of the Scriptures. Furthermore, when American Christians adopt the mother-baby closeness that characterizes the primitive situation criticized by the Ezzos, they find the same results - happy babies. Are the babies happy and content because they have succeeded in controlling their mothers? Of course not, but that's the inference one can draw from the Ezzos with their philosophy of conflict and control. To say that we modern Christians have nothing to learn about becoming authentically human from non-Christian cultures is narrow-minded nonsense. That would mean we have nothing to learn from the great Greek plays with their insights into the horrible faults of fallen man. It would mean that we have nothing to learn from Plato and Aristotle. Yes, it is true that Bible teaches, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). However, nowhere does Scripture teach that the Bible is either the only source of revelation or that it is the only source of knowledge about humanity. To claim or act as if God has given us the Bible as our only source of such knowledge is to act in a way that has no basis in Scripture. 9. The Ezzos push matters of common Christian belief beyond what can be found either in Scripture or Tradition. For example, the Ezzos note that God is the God of order. Granted. No one needs a Bible quote to agree on that, but, as a matter of fact, there is no verse that states directly, "God is the God of order." Then they conclude that God wants you to have a strict feeding and sleeping program for your child so that your life will have order. That conclusion is not found in either Scripture or Tradition. It is the personal opinion of the Ezzos, and when they are really pressed, they admit it. Please review critique item #2 in this list of eleven. I would argue, on the contrary, that God's order is not man's schedule. I believe that as part of his orderly plan, God created babies with certain instincts for survival. These instincts include giving various clues that they need to be nursed or to be held, and that crying is among these clues. I would argue that in God's orderly plan there is a maternal instinct which is fostered by breastfeeding that releases prolactin which, in turn, makes a mother feel more motherly. In other words, God's order is a matter of perspective. The late and great Doctor Herbert Ratner wrote well of this order from the baby's viewpoint: A baby born into the world either experiences it as orderly or as disorderly. If he's hungry and someone feeds him, if he's wet and someone changes him, if he's cold and someone warms him, if he has gas and someone burps him, if he is overwhelmed with strangeness and helplessness and someone takes him to her bosom with a pair of loving arms , then it is an orderly world.36 I would argue further that it is part of God's orderly plan that babies have an emotional need to be with their mothers and a physiological need to nurse frequently. This keeps mother and baby together, and the frequent nursing enables the mother to give plenty of time and attention to this baby before her fertility returns. I think it is part of God's orderly plan that babies are spaced about two years apart, on the average, without any conscious fertility awareness or periodic abstinence, to say nothing of using unnatural, ungodly methods of birth control. Can I prove my convictions by citing biblical chapter and verse? No. Can the Ezzos prove their convictions by citing biblical chapter and verse? No. Here is where the believer has to recognize the truth of Romans 1, cited above, about the existence of the natural law. Here is where the believer has to use those gifts of God called reason and common sense. Following these aspects of God's orderly plan means little or nothing to the Ezzos who, as we have seen above, gladly accept the use of unnatural methods of birth control, completely ignoring all the major figures of the Reformation who saw the Onan account as condemning unnatural methods. 10. The alleged battle for control between infant and parents has no basis in Sacred Scripture. It's more in tune with the contemporary culture of death. As the Pope stated during his historic visit to Cuba, in the anti-life mentality, "Children are presented not as what they are - a great gift of God - but rather as something to be defended against."37 In reality, the whole drift of the teaching of Jesus is that the stronger and the richer and the more powerful must take care of the needs of the smaller and the weaker. Witness the parable of the Good Samaritan and his Last Supper teaching about the greatest becoming as the youngest. This is so obvious that it does not need further comment. 11. The Ezzos accuse those who favor attachment parenting of being unduly influenced by the thinking of neo-pagan philosophers who have imagined that the baby comes into the world perfect and becomes imperfect by its exposure to the sins of older children and adults. Others apparently imagine that babies suffer from some sort of trauma at birth and for that reason must never be disciplined even as they age. On the contrary, Christian realists have always recognized that no matter how good your care of your baby, you cannot remove the effects of Original Sin. Breastfed Cain killed breastfed Abel. You can find just about every imaginable sin in the Old Testament, and the presumption has to be that those sinners were breastfed as babies. Breastfed toddlers do not naturally share their toys. The Bible, and especially the Old Testament, repeatedly tells parents they have the duty to discipline their children. Anti-Christian philosophers and educators who refuse to admit the effects of Original Sin are simply as unrealistic in their way as the Ezzos are in theirs. The same holds true for those with some sort of birth trauma hypothesis. They see the problem - the effects of Original Sin - but through their lack of faith they cannot admit the cause. So they grope around in their darkness for some other explanation. You can rest assured that those in primitive cultures who practice "attachment parenting" certainly didn't get any of their ideas from the neo-pagans of the West. Their following a basic natural law is a much more plausible explanation. The same holds true for those who opt for "attachment parenting" in Western culture today, despite the almost overwhelming cultural drift toward "detachment parenting," of which the Ezzos' total-control, cry-it-out philosophy is merely one variation. A different view is presented in Sheila Kippley's Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing: How Natural Mothering Spaces Babies.38 In this book Mrs. Kippley shows how a modern Western mother can give her baby the benefits of ecological breastfeeding and still live a normal life - and even a better life because what's good for her baby is good for the mother. Summary. This review has not analyzed the pros and cons of the actual practice of the type of total-control, detachment parenting advocated by the Ezzos in their program. Others have done so and have concluded that the Ezzos' detachment parenting is not or may not be in the best interest of babies and small children. I believe these critics' conclusions will be even stronger once they incorporate the 1997 breastfeeding Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics into their thinking. My purpose has been simple: to review their program in the light of claims that the Ezzos program is soundly based on the Bible. My conclusion has to be that in its specifics there is no basis for such claims. This is hardly a remarkable conclusion because, as we have seen, Gary Ezzo has admitted as much in a magazine interview. I cannot stop people from adopting a detachment form of parenting even though I think it is not good for children. However, I hope that this review relieves parents from thinking either of two things. First, they should not think that they are somehow obliged to follow the Ezzos' form of detachment parenting because of the clever labeling of one of the GFI books as "God's way." Second, they should not think that in letting their baby cry-it-out and putting their baby on a strict feeding schedule they are somehow following a biblical way of raising children. To the first point, it should be clear that the program should be labeled "Raising Kids the Ezzos' Way." To the second point, it should be clear that there is no basis in Scripture for thinking that God is calling you to let your baby cry-it-out or to put your baby on a strict schedule. I have only hinted at another major question, namely, the effects of Ezzo-style parenting on the emotional, physical and spiritual health of babies and small children. If you want to pursue the health aspects of attachment parenting versus detachment parenting, a good place to start is the previously referenced AAP 1997 Policy Statement, "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk." For starters, consider this: "Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger" (emphasis in original). The bottom line is that parents who choose to let their babies cry-it-out and to put their babies on strict feeding and sleeping schedules should not try to rationalize such choices from the Bible. Such choices cannot be supported by Sacred Scripture or science. 1 Thomas P. Mezzetti, Jr., M.D., and
Jacintha C. Mezzetti, "Neo-Evangelizing the Catholic Family
with an Alien Gospel," (Kensington, MD., 1997) unpublished
manuscript of approximately 40 single-spaced pages. © 1998 Couple to Couple League International Inc. |
| Article Last Updated: 2/5/2001 11:53:07 AM |
| Article Created: 2/5/2001 11:36:25 AM |