Ecological Baby Feeding

In the June 29-July 5 Letters section, the discussion about the decision to postpone or avoid pregnancy continued (“Couples Open to Life”). I would like to point out an alternative to charting or “having as many babies as possible”: ecological breastfeeding.

Strongly advocated by the largest teacher of Natural Family Planning, ecological breast-feeding involves mothering babies the way women always and everywhere have, until our last, technology-loving, century.

Convinced that scientists are smarter than perhaps even God, we have embraced bottles, cribs, pacifiers, infant strollers, regular babysitters, etc. These things are not evil, but they do have a consequence, which is a quicker return of fertility.

If, instead, a mother commits to mothering her child naturally, she typically experiences a spacing of 2_ to 3_ years between each child, which secular scientists have independently found is the ideal spacing for mother, the nursing baby, and the subsequent baby. I have personally experienced 29 months and 23 months (and counting) of lactational infertility following the births of my children, following the Seven Standards of Natural Mothering as laid out by the Couple-to-Couple League on their website (www.ccli. org) and in the book Breastfeeding & Natural Childspacing. The most important of these standards appears to be nursing one's baby while sleeping with him.

To do this, I had to let go of my society-formed ideas of what having a child is like, but once I accepted the sacrifices I would have to make, I have never regretted it. In fact, I contend my life is much easier, since I never have a sleepless night up feeding a newborn, my baby can go anywhere with me and be fed in a sling with no one ever knowing, and I'm not ever concerned about discerning when it's been long enough to conceive again. I just follow God's built-in plan and leave it totally up to him.

Praise God for building this system into our bodies. It's only too unfortunate that not enough people, including faithful Catholics, have been taught this information.

JOSELYN SCHUTZ Alpharetta, Georgia

Episcopal Secrets

It was shocking to read that Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the USCCB, along with other bishops and Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C., met in secret with dissenters from Church teaching in a daylong, highly-structured meeting designed to plan the future of the Church in the United States (“Dissenters' Secret Bishops Meeting,” July 26-Aug. 9).

The bishops should explain why this was a secret meeting and why pro-abortionists were in attendance, but lay people noted for their fidelity to church teaching were not included. If they don't have an explanation consistent with their office to proclaim the Gospel and protect the true faith, then they have betrayed the faithful laity and should resign.

We have had too many episcopal cover-ups already.

JAMES FRITZ Great Cacapon, West Virginia

Holding on to Hispanics

In “Cardinal McCarrick Appeals for More Efforts to Evangelize Hispanics” (July 20-26), Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., suggested radio, TV, street preaching and newspapers to reach the people. Another suggestion is to show Hispanics that the Church is interested in their welfare and in combating discrimination against them.

There is a detestable discrimination that has been continuing for over two years against an outstanding Hispanic — Miguel Estrada — who was nominated by President Bush to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in May, 2001. Mr. Estrada has not received a vote of his confirmation because pro-abortion Democrat senators are filibustering.

If Cardinal McCarrick and other bishops would rally the laity to object to this situation, that would demonstrate to Hispanics that the Church will not let them be discriminated against. A letter to be read at all Masses telling people that it is intolerable to treat a person in such a despicable manner would go a long way to bolstering the faith among Hispanics.

RICHARD A. RETTA Rockville, Maryland

The Mandatum Mess

Regarding “Mandatum 4: Loyola: Parents Take Nothing for Granted” (July 20-26):

It is amazing to learn that the neither the theology chairman nor the president of Loyola University in Chicago responded when asked whether their professors of religion, Scripture, theology, liturgy and history have the mandatum. It is clearly stated in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 812, that “it is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastic authority.”- What is the problem? Insubordination?

Practitioners of other professions are required to get some kind of permission in order to practice. Physicians must have a license, issued by the pertinent state and based on examination. Physicians without a license cannot diagnose or treat patients in the hospital or have a private practice. The physician's license to practice medicine is not a “private document”; it is checked yearly by the hospital administration.

It is not conceivable that some university professors lecturing on religion have no “permit” or “mandate” — and that university officials, deans and presidents tolerate the lack … and … do not disclose whether their professors have such mandate or not.

Do they know about the Canon 812 of the Code of Canon Law? I feel the bishop, with his authority, surely has a list of those professors with a mandate. Those without it should not teach; they should be suspended until they obtain it. Such list should be available to requesters.

NICHOLAS KUTKA, M.D. Houston, Texas

Regarding your July 20-26 editorial, “Massachusetts' Marriage Mess”:

I am in complete sympathy with the intentions of the Federal Marriage Amendment, but question the strategy for various reasons.

In principle, the constitutional-amendment strategy cedes too much to Justice Kennedy and his allies. It says, in effect, “Your interpretation of the Constitution is-legally correct; we can overcome it only by amending the defect.”

The amendment strategy also allows legislators to wash their hands of leadership on the issue, saying they “support an amendment,” but meanwhile dithering perpetually over language (ask pro-lifers about the 30-year-old Human Life Amendment if you doubt this). Any Congressman saying his strategy for opposing homosexual marriage is to support a constitutional amendment is telegraphing, “I won't be doing-much about this issue.”

Furthermore, our Constitution was designed to be difficult to amend — that's how Phyllis Schlafly blocked the Equal Rights Amendment. Theoretically as few as 2% of the population, strategically placed, can block the will of a 98% majority. Does anyone doubt the incredibly mobilized “gay lobby” can muster the small margin of resistance necessary to defeat an amendment?

Your editorial is right that the question of homosexual marriage must be put to votes. But a better strategy would be to take the debate directly from the people through Congress to the courts using-legislative measures. Two examples: In the 1800s, Americans vehemently opposed polygamy, yet constitutional amendments failed repeatedly to make it out of Congress. A series of federal laws, culminating in the Mann Act, succeeded in banning it. In that case, the Supreme Court was on the moral side.

But when it overreaches its authority, the Supreme Court can be effectively opposed.

By design, constitutional amendments are the last step in the dialogue, not the first. To win a consensus on the issue, we need to put our efforts into a series of legislative steps defending marriage at the federal and state levels — and insist that our elected officials provide determined leadership. If we focus our energies on an amendment that will likely fail, we will give homosexual activists the claim they need to lock “gay marriage” into the Constitution forever.

REBECCA TETI Hyattsville, Maryland