One comment

  1. 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.
    AMDG, Janet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s