Would a contracepted marriage never be consummated?

[DL82]

From a Catholic canon law perspective, if two people married but had only ever had contracepted sex, perhaps because the woman had had a coil or one of the long-lasting injection type contraceptives, would the marriage be considered unconsummated? As I understand it, contracepted intercourse is considered incomplete from a Catholic viewpoint. Would this cut both ways as regards annulment?

I don’t have a particular case in mind, it’s a purely theoretical question.

 

[chevalier]

As a rule, a contracepted intercourse would not consummate marriage. The act is not full and humane that way. However, I can’t guarantee it is always taken this way.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From Wikipedia (see here):

Within the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope (see also canons 1697-1706). Additionally, an inability or an intention to refuse to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines (canon 1061 §1) that a marriage has been consummated when the “spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.” Some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, have stated that contraceptive intercourse does not consummate a marriage.

 

[Pug]

From a Catholic canon law perspective, if two people married but had only ever had contracepted sex, perhaps because the woman had had a coil or one of the long-lasting injection type contraceptives, would the marriage be considered unconsummated? As I understand it, contracepted intercourse is considered incomplete from a Catholic viewpoint. Would this cut both ways as regards annulment?

I don’t have a particular case in mind, it’s a purely theoretical question.

Someone probably has an official answer to this, but I would like to start by pointing out that there can be difference between ways of contracepting. A condom is a barrier, but the pill is not. Withdrawal is like a condom in that certain things never get where they are supposed to get.

Under the old canon law, I suspect it was the case that pill usage did not prevent consummation, but that an act of withdrawal (every time) might. The new canon law is phrased slightly differently, but I haven’t heard of anyone suddenly treating the concept in a different manner. So, probably they did not mean to change anything…

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
§2. After a marriage has been celebrated, if the spouses have lived together consummation is presumed until the contrary is proven.
§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

I totally understand what you are saying about contracepted intercourse not really being marital acts like they ought to be. I’ve wondered about this question myself, but I don’t have the training to answer you. Do notice, though, that if they have lived together, consummation is presumed to have happened.