Nudity and Sin

[introibo]

As I stated earlier, there are folks here (NathanSoc for one) who have no children or at least have no experience with breastfeeding.  Most trads travel a long distance to attend Mass - I'm relatively close at 23 miles away....that's about 35 minutes to Mass, Mass lasts at least an hour and often longer.  The baby cannot be nursed safely in the car, and even if I wait til the last minute to nurse him/her at home, we're talking a good hour and 45 minutes between feedings.  Rarely possible.

I've nursed 8 kids, often at Mass, too.  Now, we have the advantage in having a sparsely populated parish and a large church, so we have the pew to ourselves.  Nobody has ever questioned my nursing or, frankly, I think, ever noticed it.  But I have had to nurse in very crowded churches with people staring over my shoulder, and although the onus is on me to be discreet, (and it can be awkward when the baby is having a hard time latching on or whatever) I have never had to expose myself....one must always be "prepared" to nurse in public.  It's the nature of the thing.

We know a priest, formerly of the FSSP, now of his own order (no names here) whom, when we first met him and visited him in a new residence, noticed that my two month old baby was fussing around.  He told me "don't feel uncomfortable nursing..it's the perfectly Catholic thing to do."  Granted, this was in the house, not the church, but his attitude was great.

Christina

[Richeldis]

If you don't want to see a breastfeeding infant, you don't have to look. Not that there's ever anything to see anyway in my experience.
A hungry baby can't tell the time and can't wait. And what on earth has breastfeeding got to do with either nudity or sin, or have I missed something?

[Deidre]

What happens if a widower is with his infant (as you prefer) and the infant screams for a feed. The man has no choice but to feed the infant by bottle.

No, this has less to do with hungry infants, but moreso the presumption by some that because some women are nursing mothers they automatically have some inalienable sacred right to breastfeed in Church. I'm sorry to say that no such sacred God given right exists.

Okay, your problem seems to be not with infants being fed during Mass, but rather with how they are fed. Am I correct?

As for this:

She [a mother] does not need to flaunt her mother-child relationship in public

wouldn't bottle-feeding show a mother-child relationship also? Merely showing a relationship is inevitable, given that the mother in either situation would be doing what a mother should do: providing sustenance and comfort for her child. As for the idea of the mother flaunting the relationship, I would leave that one alone, as we certainly can't look into the mother's mind and read her intentions.

People bottle-feed in my church all the time, and I have to say that if breastfeeding can be done as discreetly as many of the mothers on the forum say it can (and I'm pretty sure it can, having seen it done-though not in church, I'll admit) I really don't see any difference between it and bottle-feeding, as far as how appropriate it is. Breasts were made for providing babies nourishment first, after all, before the world became so obsessed with ogling.

[JLeigh]

Interesting point. Personally I think this public breastfeeding issue is over rated and most women would be very self-conscious of breast feeding in public and would not feel comfortable doing so in the company of strangers - particularly men, say on a train or something. So why force the issue in regards to mass at all? It's not as if there is any precedent for it within the Church.

I must say, I'm not sure how you can know that mothers never fed their infants in mass before.

Not always. Women sometimes use their breasts to attract male attention to themselves - as they well know - before they use them for baby food, and then again sometimes after that too. 

 So I'm not sure how public breastfeeding, not only in mass, would reinforce the fact that breasts have always been used to feed babies.

This happens to be my opinion, not a precept of the Church, so obviously you don't have to agree with me on it. ;)

Does it? Surely you can't let a hungry baby scream its head off during mass regardless of blanket or not. Make up your mind Ms Leigh. 

Come now. I'm sure you got my point. Must I go over it again?

She would be more caring if she made sure neither happened. Mass is not an appropriate place for breastfeeding babies. It was never designed to be interestingly enough.

When are you going to understand that it is impossible for all mothers the world over to "make sure" their babies don't get hungry on Sunday mornings? It seems like such an easy thing to understand.........

 

I hope you're not speaking from personal experience, here.

I wish I knew what you were talking about.

Yes, I know. Apparently stating that mass is not a mothers club is just not enough for some people.

I'm quite certain your "mass is not a mother's club" comment was not your only post in this thread.

Dear oh dear. Makes you wonder why people even use feeding bottles at all.

I'm sure they have their reasons, but what does that have to do with my comment?

[JLeigh]

Now that's a good point about the possible father.

What happens if a widower is with his infant (as you prefer) and the infant screams for a feed.

Umm..just off the top of my head here, he feeds the child?

The man has no choice but to feed the infant by bottle.

Is anybody here saying that it's inappropriate to bottle feed during mass?

No, this has less to do with hungry infants, but moreso the presumption  by some that because some women are nursing mothers they automatically have some inalienable sacred right to breastfeed in Church. I'm sorry to say that no such right exists.

Fortunately, since you're not infallible, we are not bound by your acid comments.

[CaroleK]

No, this has less to do with hungry infants, but moreso the presumption  by some that because some women are nursing mothers they automatically have some inalienable sacred right to breastfeed in Church. I'm sorry to say that no such right exists.

What about the infant's right to be breastfed?

Clare.

Excellent point, Clare! 

I would hasten to add that we [mothers] may not have an "inalienable sacred right" to breastfeed in Church ... instead we have a sacred calling, a vocation, to care for and raise our children.  Sometimes, Nathan, that means actually feeding our children.  Perhaps rather than complaining about women who feed their children you should focus on being thankful that your mother fed you.

[FlosCarmeli]

Wow six pages on this? I think the point has been made.

[miss_fluffy]

Hows 'bout a "Hooter Hider"?

[Jarrod_D]

What are the primary purpose of the female breasts? Oh, thats right, it is for breast feeding their children. The reason why they are considered sexual objects is because as males we are drawn (even though it may be subconsciously) to find fertility and potential maternity to be attractive ... this is the stuff that progency is made up of.

Now, as Catholics, we must not loose our sense of the things human. Breast feeding is perfectly natural and is appropriate anywhere. We are running dangerously close to having a completely artificial society where everything we do is a cheap imitation of what God has given us (as an example: Baby Formula) ... I applaud the mothers on this forum who have stepped up and fought for their right to breast feed; by doing this they uphold the Catholic position of trying to keep humans, human. 

re: Maria Lactans

I am glad someone put up a picture of Mary Breast feeding (Maria Lactans) because I have been in a number of churches in Rome which have this same image (sometimes even more explicit) hanging over the altar.

Art vs. Pornography

The basic difference between art and pornography is that in art the gentials are rarely shown and the purpose is to show forth the beauty of God's creation; within pornography on the other hand the whole goal is to show sexually explicit photographs or movies in order to incite passion. Whereas art may show a nude woman bathing, or breast feeding--doing naturally human things--pornography portrays them just standing around trying to draw attention to their nudity. Art is truly human, trying to portray life; pornography is animal in that it tries to inflame passion.

Can art inflame passion? Can watching someone breast feed inflame passion? Sure, I guess; but the evil is not in the action or the thing, but rather in the one who see's evil where none exists.

At least this is my take on it.

Jarrod

[MikeSearson]

If you knew all that, why did you start this thread?