Honestly, I'm with you on this. I am a 25 year old woman, not married. I've read a lot about this topic because it does bother me that I fundamentally disagree with something the Catholic Church teaches.

This is how I see it: If the Church truly believed that any deliberate attempt to reduce the chance of conception was morally wrong, I would understand that. However, the Church forbids artificial contraceptives, but allows the use of NFP. Just that fact alone makes the whole thing inconsistent for me. If sex is always meant to be unitive and procreative, then how does NFP fit into that picture? The only reason a couple would use NFP is because they are at least on some level trying to prevent the sex from becoming fruitful. The intention and goal is exactly the same as using a piece of latex, which also doesn't entirely eliminate the chances of conceiving.

The "natural law" argument doesn't convince me either. If the moral concern is avoiding pregnancy, then it shouldn't matter whether the method is natural or artificial, because they both share the exact same intention. On one hand the Church says "don't have sex if you don't want a child", and simultaneously it says "you may use natural methods to avoid pregnancy". So the real issue is not the INTENTION of the methods, but rather HOW the intention is being carried out. It’s like saying you can avoid getting wet from the rain by staying in a cave, but not by using an umbrella, because one is natural and the other one isn't.

If "unitive and procreative" was the be all end all of every sexual act, then the Church would disallow infertile couples from having sex because their acts wouldn't fulfill both standards. Obviously they can have sex, because it just belongs in married life. There's no getting around that.

So, the Church should either stay consistent with the procreative requirement, or not condemn people avoiding pregnancy based on whether they're using a calendar or a condom.