Danielle Bean's comments on NFP

  • Thread starter Thread starter bbroussard2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
She has practiced NFP for many years. Although she encourages other Catholics to use it, she has a few criticisms. None of them are deal-breaking.

I dunno… things don’t improve unless constructive criticism is made. 🤷
 
I thought it was well written & made some great points. She seems to approach it from a very practical viewpoint & from the viewpoint of experience herself 🙂
 
It is not the fact that she has some issues with the details of using NFP that bothers me, instead, it is her sarcastic, “aren’t I so amusing?” kind of delivery that I find offensive. I am basically fed up with sarcastic “humor” of any kind, whether in writing or in otherwise. I am not talking about irony here, but rather sarcasm. There are other ways to get a point across 🙂
 
I am usually pretty sensitive to sarcasm, I just didn’t sense that here. I guess when I read it the practical difficulties she talks about just stood out more to me. I can understand that this is a very important topic & why the article may have this effect.
 
For me, her delivery came across as sarcastic and even a little demeaning. I am also an NFP user, and yes, the concerns she brings up are real and valid. As a mom of 5 who has been using NFP for 20 years, I can readily attest to that. I just wouldn’t have chosen to write about it in the tone that she chose to use. However, using sarcasm, or “snarkiness” as it is sometimes referred to, in writing/speaking has become so prevalent over the course of the past 15-20 years, that it is almost standard writing style for many people now, so I don’t mean to finger just her.

I just hope that her article doesn’t discourage newly marrieds and engaged couples from even trying NFP. While I don’t think it will have a huge effect in that direction, many do not need too much encouragement to move in that direction and just conclude, “Well, if even Danielle Bean can’t make NFP work/isn’t happy with it, I won’t be either, so why bother.”
 
I think she wrote a great article and I must say that I didn’t read any sarcasm in it. NFP is great but one size doesn’t fit all.

Talking about NFP in glowing terms without ever mentioning some of the negatives is like praising breastfeeding to the heavens while never mentioning cracked nipples, poor latch, etc. It will result in upset, disaffected people who give up because it’s doesn’t conform to the rosy idealistic picture that had been painted for them. At best it will frustrate them, at worse it will make them turn to ABC.
 
Phemie said:
I think she wrote a great article and I must say that I didn’t read any sarcasm in it. NFP is great but one size doesn’t fit all.

Talking about NFP in glowing terms without ever mentioning some of the negatives is like praising breastfeeding to the heavens while never mentioning cracked nipples, poor latch, etc. It will result in upset, disaffected people who give up because it’s doesn’t conform to the rosy idealistic picture that had been painted for them. At best it will frustrate them, at worse it will make them turn to ABC.
Click to expand...
There are two issues involved. First is to state that NFP (and breastfeeding) are good methods encouraged by the Church. The second is all the practical advice and training on how to do them. The second is where I see Danille’s article. She’s speaking from a position of expereince and as someone with many children and towards the end of her childbaring years. This is not the first article I would recommend to a newly married couple just starting down that path, but that don’t mean she doesn’t have an audience who will appreciate her views.
 
I thought her style of writing was amusing - along the lines of a Mark Twain. Nothing wrong with sarcasm, iron, humor - these are all literary styles or tools in a writer’s toolbox. Makes her points very down to earth IMHO.

Thanks for the link!

BTW, we tried NFP to try and conceive and it didn’t work for us. I shared my charts with the NP and doctor and both said my body clearly doesn’t show any fertility spike throughout my cycle. Managed to “catch it” anyway, so Praise God! But NFP was of no help to me due to my particular body not fitting the norm.
 
I for one and grateful to see someone in print point out that NFP is not a requirement, that we can live happy healthy lives without any type of birth control monitoring including NFP.
 
valient_Lucy said:
There was a similar article in the New York Times yesterday.
Click to expand...
um… I don’t see the similarity. The NYT article is about a young Protestant couple who briefly were stars in the NFP world, writing a book on the subject. Then, four years later, they publicly disavowed NFP and got a divorce, moving to different parts of the US. And then changed their religious affiliation to two different liberal denominations.

I guess I don’t see much similarity to the article in the first post. :confused:
 
Dale_M said:
um… I don’t see the similarity. The NYT article is about a young Protestant couple who briefly were stars in the NFP world, writing a book on the subject. Then, four years later, they publicly disavowed NFP and got a divorce, moving to different parts of the US. And then changed their religious affiliation to two different liberal denominations.

I guess I don’t see much similarity to the article in the first post. :confused:
Click to expand...
Danielle Bean’s article expresses some of the same frustrations that the couple in the NYT article discussed (NFP not working, causing marital problems, etc.) Danielle Bean ultimately stayed with NFP out of religious convictions, but the Protestant couple in the book didn’t have those convictions, so they chose to reject NFP because of those problems.

It also talks about the danger of not addressing the negatives of a system, and overemphasising the positives, which is one thing that Danielle Bean mentions in the article.
 
valient_Lucy said:
It also talks about the danger of not addressing the negatives of a system, and overemphasising the positives, which is one thing that Danielle Bean mentions in the article.
Click to expand...
CCL’s most recent magazine talked about that very thing too. It said its teaching couples tell prospective NFP users only about the positives, and significantly downplay, ignore, or deny that it involves any negatives because they are afraid no one would try it if they knew the reality. It says that this does more harm than good, and I couldn’t agree more! The author’s 1st criticism of NFP describes my situation perfectly.
 
sojo said:
I thought her style of writing was amusing - along the lines of a Mark Twain. Nothing wrong with sarcasm, iron, humor - these are all literary styles or tools in a writer’s toolbox. Makes her points very down to earth IMHO.
Click to expand...
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. While sarcasm is certainly a tool, it can be overused, and nowadays, I believe that it is being overused. In addition, there is a time and a place for it. If you want to view the sexual relationship between husband and wife as reverent and holy, and DB says she does, then sarcasm is probably not the best tool to choose when writing about it. I think for me that’s it, actually - the style doesn’t fit the subject, but that is my opinion, and it turns me off to her writing.

Of course NFP isn’t “one size fits all”. I hope I did not give the impression that I think that. I just would not have chosen to approach the topic the way that she did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top