Since you aren’t seeing your comments, and I can’t imagine that you, or anyone else would ever want to miss what I said:
While it’s a subtle distinction, and I haven’t thought this through for more than the 3 minutes and 43 seconds it took me to read the article and comments, I wonder if we don’t need to approach the discussion from another angle.
I think we should start with the idea that we are discussing married sexuality—what it’s for (as you said), what the ideal is according to the teaching of the Church. The reason I say this is that NFP is just an ancillary topic. So, if you talking about cooking, say, you don’t necessarily begin with stoves. Now, most people in this day and age will use a stove to cook, but not everyone, and it’s even really necessary to have a stove. (I know this a terribly analogy, but I have to get back to work.)
So, in the end, you might have the exact same conversation, but in your mind, you are looking at a different goal. Hopes this makes some sense.
I am a freelance writer. This here is my personal blog. What appears here is my opinion and my responsibility, and is not the opinion or responsibility of the National Catholic Register, Our Sunday Visitor, Catholic Digest or any other publication that publishes my work.
Leaving the house, little two-legs? Not without your PANTS PASS!