Has anyone else heard of being "Churched" after the birth of a baby.?

I was churched after the birth of my daughter now 46 years old. Why I went along with it I don't know I must have been a different person than I am today. What rubbish! I can't remember anybody being there either. I was told I had to be 'done' before the christening. I quite agree with Gottheshirt. Why didn't I say No. I suppose you are in a different world when baby is only 3-5 weeks old and you're busy with washing nappies, cooking dinners and shopping. We were probably too tired to say No.

Buddhism makes most complete sense to me.

I was just about to say something similar to what nickelbabe has just written. I don't know if anyone watched that lovely tv series 'Churches and how to read them', but it showed some churches that had special areas for expectant mothers to go to for blessing because of the danger involved in childbirth [which still hasn't really gone away] and I did think [again before reading the above post] that perhaps it was also to do with cleansing the new mother who, having survived the childbirth itself still wasn't out of danger completely. But, then again it was probably still to do with us women being the ones who, from the Garden of Eden onwards have always tempted men into doing wicked things [it's always our fault] and childbirth is the ultimate proof of said wanton behaviour taking place.

It's not such a huge thing now - it has the biblical origin of making the woman clean after child birth.
the relevant section of the Book of Common Prayer is here:
below the marriage bit

I am planning on having this done - mainly because it's a thanksgiving of the woman surviving childbirth - as you can imagine, a very important thing before "modern medicine" (lots of women dying etc - still being alive afterwards was definitely something to thank God for!)
These days, a lot of the emphasis is on the baby - at our church, they do a thanksgiving for the child when they're born - no mention of thought of the poor woman and her travail...
I like the words, as well - very similar to the traditional baptism, and also to parts of the wedding service itself. It's nice that in a male-dominated religion, the woman is recognised. (I suppose only this bit because it's God-in-woman made manifest - a reflection of Mary)

I had my daughter in 1975 and my mother in law told my husband that I must be 'churched' before I could come into their house.
I just told him to tell her that I wouldn't be getting 'churched' so it was up to her whether myself and the baby came into their house - but if I was not welcome then the baby would not be visiting either.

If I had thought for one moment that it was a true belief of hers I would have been more sensitive - but it was just a ridiculous superstition.
Its irritating when people choose to be all religious over one issue but totally ignore religious teachings in areas that do not suit them.
Mind you - it was six months before she let us in !

Have not waded thought all these posts but did notice a couple of mentions of Sunday School. The purpose of Sunday school, I suspect, was so that parents could make more babies during their "rest" time on Sunday afternoons!

Sorry, absentgrana, I misunderstood your reference to St Paul, and entirely agree about male-dominated religion - one of the reasons I call myself a 'sort-of' Catholic. Of course we can only speak out of our own experiences, and I never experienced the RC church as instilling fear, though I appreciate that others did. The nuns who taught me were not Irish, which I suspect makes a difference. It is clear that the Church's privileged position in Ireland had a toxic effect on its adherents, as witness the appalling revelations still coming out.

I think there is need to talk of its worst. The revelations of depradation in Ireland have been hidden for too long. We don't want to know this stuff because it's horrible but we need to know it to do something about it.

Of course there are plenty of good Catholics. But there are plenty of good people of every faith and of none. Religion is irrelevant when it come to goodness.

Just to be very clear - I understood the comment about Paul to refer to the general male dominance of much (though not all) of Christianity.
I also suspect that "churching" although Biblical in the sense previously mentioned, harks back to older times. I also suspect that the very nice custom of setting aside a "special time" has been hi-jacked & twisted.

Of course the RC is a broad church, and those of us outside it will often only come across it at its best and at its worst, as those in the middle keep fairly quiet.
I well remember a tiny (now defunct) convent attached to a RC school in an industrial town where I worked in the 70s. If we got kids in there, the nuns would give them breakfast, wash them & sort out any uniform problems, get them to school on time & give them tea after. If there were any struggling families with even a whiff of RC about them, a good-hearted young priest would come (at the Health Visitor's or Social Worker's request) and baptise the children at home! I told this tale recently at a social gathering, and one lady (announcing herself as RC) told me I must have been mistaken and this could not have happened as the church wouldn't have allowed it! I hope that young priest has his place in the assured in the heaven I don't myself believe in!

No need to talk of its worst.

I was brought up in a Catholic family and, although fear was not instilled into us, guilt was. All the time. About silly things. In predominantly Catholic countries this is still the case.

raggygranny My reference to St Paul was do with a male-dominated religion's – and aren't almost all of them – attitude to women. There is something deeply ironic about a virgin, herself the product of immaculate conception, needing to be purified after childbirth.

Surely it comes from the Old Testament (Leviticus 12), where a woman has to be 'purified' after childbirth. Nothing to do with St Paul, who doesn't mention the matter. In fact it is not mentioned at all in the New Testament except in passing in Luke 2.22, when Mary has to go up to the Temple to be 'purified' after the birth of Jesus.
BTW, like FlicketyB I do not recognise this fear that all RCs are supposed to have been indoctrinated with!

I am sure I heard my Anglican granny talk about 'churching' and she was, most likely, 'churched'. But after that, the family, by then resident in Scotland, adopted the Church of Scotland which, fortunately, had no truck with such ritualistic nonsense.

Good lord - I thought "churching" was medieval, and died out long ago! I always understood it was about being cleansed (and yes, husbands/fathers got away without any sanctimony). I had no idea it was around in its archaic form so recently.

I'm sure it was both. Isn't it funny how things can disappear from your memory for years and years, then all of a sudden they resurface. This brings up memories of a very overpowering mother in law! Why didn't I just say "no, it's not for me" (she's long gone now!....and her son is now my ex husband.)

Positively kinky gotthetshirt
I hope you felt suitably purified.
Actually wasn't part of the tradition giving thanks for survival? Giving birth used to be a dangerous undertaking. Did you have to give thanks or was it just a cleansing ritual?

Looking back, one thing I find most odd about it, is that it was all carried out in an otherwise empty church...just me, the baby and the vicar!

I hope young Mums don't feel that sort of pressure today xx

I was 19 when my first baby was born in 1974. My mother-in-law made a great fuss about me being churched. Me (being young and easily persuaded) agreed. I remember standing in front of the vicar, with baby, and feeling decidedly uncomfortable about the whole thing. I didn't understand it then and still don't.

jess, I did scripture exams at Sunday school. I was really good at them. I used to come out top.

Pity I didn't work so hard at ordinary school!

Brought up as a Catholic (still am, sort of) I always thought 'churching' was a CofE thing. Certainly when I had my kids in the 1970s no such thing was ever mentioned, and I don't know anyone, RC or otherwise, who was ever expected to undergo such a thing.

My un-religious mum used to send us to Sunday school where we did scripture exams. (her rationale was that we should understand christianity as part of culture - and also probably she got a bit of peace and quiet)
Consequently i am far more au fait on the Bible than many religious people, including DH who was brought up a catholic.
Mum was right that if you are to understand western history, art and literature it helps to have a grounding in the bible.
I am with Phoenix and Baggy on the hierarchy of the catholic church. In my value system they are a bad lot. To put it politely. Yes I know there are lots of lovely priests who do good things, I am sure, but as an organisation I cannot say a single good word about it.

I too have no religious belief, maintaining of course a respect for those who do.
But being a curious & bookish child, brought up (on my mum's side) by devout people, I did spend a good bit of my childhood reading the Prayer Book, the Bible, other religious works, and asking lots of people about what I read.
I had a very religious colleague, a lovely woman, but rather unquestioning about her faith. She cheerfully admitted defeat in any discussion with me, saying most Christians didn't know St. Paul inside out & upside down (so to speak) as I did.
I pointed out to her that whilst I would almost certainly have come to a Humanist position anyway, Saul of Tarsus sped me on my way!

Heh! absent. Except that I rarely swear, I'd say two rude words to St. Bloody Paul. (Lest anyone has forgotten, bloody doesn't count, especially if you're married to a Welshman. He never says bloody — unless something is, of course — but that's beside the point ).

So I haven't said the rude words, only thought them. Stupid man.

Baggy Don't let's forget St Paul of Misogyny and his heavenly hierarchy where virgins trump wives.