Yes. Artificial birth control is the intentional separation of the conjugal act from the procreative act. It's an attempt to "have your cake and eat it" and fundamentally distorts the nature of sex and the relationship between man and woman.
There are valid, prudential reasons for wishing to avoid the birth of a child. None of those reasons justify the sin of contraception (in Catholic theology), but simple abstinence within marriage is not contraception, is not a sin, and is even encouraged in the bible.
NFP can become tainted by the contraceptive mentality and be used for illicit reasons, but this is a completely different sin than that of using artificial contraception, by reason that it does not interfere with the nature of the sexual act.
If a couple only has sex when they know there is an incredibly small chance of pregnancy, aren't they also separating the conjugal act from the procreative act?
There are valid, prudential reasons for wishing to avoid the birth of a child. None of those reasons justify the sin of contraception (in Catholic theology), but simple abstinence within marriage is not contraception, is not a sin, and is even encouraged in the bible.
The abstinence is fine, but what about those periods where the couple is not abstinent? What is so different between reducing your odds of pregnancy by having sex when you know it will likely not lead to pregnancy, versus using a barrier that will make sex likely not lead to pregnancy?
NFP can become tainted by the contraceptive mentality and be used for illicit reasons, but this is a completely different sin than that of using artificial contraception, by reason that it does not interfere with the nature of the sexual act.
What does it mean for NFP to be "tainted by the contraceptive mentality"?
How does contraceptive use change the nature of the sexual act in a way that NFP does not? In both cases, steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. That seems pretty similar to me.