You were the person who insisted that “Natural” family planning was more effective than any “Artificial” means, thus convincing me that Roman Catholic teaching could ignore intent even in achieving the same ends.
Abstinence, whether short-term or long-term, is not contraception, That is, it is not choosing to change the sex act in order to split off part of its function.
If abstinence were the same as contrception, then all all chaste celibate single people would be contraceptors. But this is not the case!
There are two "intents" in contraception:
(1) the intent to avoid pregnancy (which is not in itself necessarily bad: it might be good or bad) and
(2) the intent to engage in a disordered act of sex. Which is always bad.
A disordered act of sex is an act that has been turned away from its normal function. If a man chooses to ejaculate into his wife's anus, for instance, that is an act turned away from its normal function. Using a drug, a device, or surgery for the purpose of knocking out fertility would similarly turn sexual union away from its normal function.
All perversion is a literal turning-away, that's what the word "perversion" means. Contraceptive sex is turned-away from some of its normal function, like homosexual sex is turned-away from some of its normal function.
There's a difference between "non-procreative" and "anti-procreative" acts. Intercourse during an already-exising pregnancy, or after menopause, or with a spouse who happens to be infertile, is non-procreative but it's not anti-procreative.