95% of marriages null due to contraception?

There's no food for thought in that article, just the usual moralizing nattering on about other people's marriages that the author knows nothing about but enjoys painting doomsday pictures.

Marriages in the Church are presumed valid - that means if neither party ever tries to get an annulment, then it's not null no matter what some article author thinks.

The concept of "generational curses" is contrary to Catholic teaching (explicitly rejected by Christ in Scripture). There is no such thing. I have noticed that the Catholic sources who support in part the idea either say that they go along with the idea to humor those seeking deliverance ministry or else they describe natural results of human genetics/ behavior (such as familial alcoholism, or fetal alcohol syndrome) as being "curses". I don't find that approach helpful as it seems to be taking ordinary physical diseases or conditions and putting them into some weird supernatural context.

www.oursundayvisitor.com/what-does-the-church-teach-about-generational-curses/

Considering that Fred is a ‘pioneer in fighting the PLANdmeic,’ an acolyte of Robert Malone, and has published:

the COVID vaccine is 10x more deadly than COVID-19,

Joe Biden is a ‘White House squatter who’s actions are void,’

‘their’ plan is to reduce the world population to 500mill,

I would guess they purposefully left out the name of the pontifical university to obscure the reason for departure Further, it’s probably pretty safe to dismiss him pretty much out of hand as a crank.

It stays a lot about Catholic360 and their editorial stance/decisions.

Under the editorial leadership of Micahel Warsaw it is no surprise that such an author was promoted on a NCR site via a link.

I look for truth wherever I can find it, and I am not willing to dismiss an idea simply because of who holds it.  Even if this guy's credentials are a bit shaky, I'm interested in one thing and one thing only --- whether he could be right, either in whole or in part, in the contentions in the article.  If someone comes up to me and says "the moon is made out of green cheese, and two plus two equals four", I'm not going to call his second contention into doubt just because the first one is clearly false.

Quite aside from the author of the article, Fr John Hardon said (again, sorry, no citation, I've looked in vain) that a marriage is not consummated until a natural generative act, not deliberately closed to the transmission of life, has been performed.  This article goes a bit further than that.  The part I find weakest, if the author is making this contention, is that the intent to use contraception sometime in the future, if that intention exists at the time of the marriage, and even if the marriage begins with natural generative acts, invalidates it.   

I would be interested to see what traditional canon law commentaries (such as Woywod/Smith) have to say about this --- artificial birth control barely existed at the time of the 1918 CIC, all you had, basically, was condoms or coitus interruptus.  Traditional moral theology texts, such as Jone or McHugh and Callan, might also be able to shed some light.

Please note that I put a question mark in the subject line.  I'm not necessarily agreeing with everything he says, but neither am I necessarily disagreeing with at least some parts of it.  My mind is open about the matter.  If the intention to use contraception is a diriment impediment to validity, that'd be something good to know.  Especially given the pushback that emerged at the time of Humanae vitae, that might be a hornet's nest that nobody wants to poke.

And here's what the new and latest tool in apologetics, "Magisterium AI", has to say about the matter:

Does contraceptive sexual intercourse consummate a marriage?

According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, consummation of a marriage refers to the performance of a conjugal act between the spouses that is suitable for the procreation of offspring, which is the purpose of marriage 1. The Code of Canon Law states that a valid marriage between the baptized is called "ratum et consummatum" if the spouses have performed such an act 1.

However, it is important to note that the use of contraception is considered contrary to the natural order of human sexuality and the procreative purpose of marriage 2. The Church teaches that the use of contraception is morally wrong because it intentionally frustrates the natural potential for procreation and separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act 2.

Therefore, if sexual intercourse is intentionally and consistently practiced with the use of contraception, it would not be considered a conjugal act suitable for the procreation of offspring, and thus would not consummate the marriage according to Catholic teaching. The act of contraception itself goes against the nature and purpose of marriage, which is ordered towards the procreation of children 2.

It is important to note that the presumption of consummation exists when the spouses have lived together after the marriage has been celebrated, unless proven otherwise 3. However, this presumption does not apply in cases where the spouses intentionally and consistently use contraception, as it indicates a deliberate intention to prevent the procreative aspect of the marital act.

In conclusion, according to Catholic Church teaching, sexual intercourse using contraception does not consummate a marriage because it goes against the natural order of human sexuality and the procreative purpose of marriage 1 2. The use of contraception intentionally frustrates the potential for procreation and separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act 2.

References:
Code of Canon Law 1061 §1
Code of Canon Law 1096 §1
Code of Canon Law 1061 §2

You raise an interesting point.  It would have to come down to intent.  Couples who are sterile due to necessary medical intervention (hysterectomy, surgery to remove gonads, etc.), menopause, or even use of birth control pills for purely therapeutic purposes (e.g., to treat endometriosis), clearly cannot have sexual relations that are open to life --- it's impossible.  Yet they do not will the contraceptive aspect. 

The Church already does have a canon that touches on this:

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.

The question then becomes "is a contraceptive act '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' ?".

And it's not just Jeffrey Mirus or the other two commentators.  Father John Hardon is what I would call "big guns".

Likewise, intent comes into play when the matter is posed the other way around --- does a couple, who intend to have contraceptive intercourse, end up performing the kind of conjugal act described in Canon 1061, when their method of contraception fails, and the act becomes, indeed, open to life despite their intentions and best efforts?

At best, it's a gray area, and if the Church has indeed declared marriages null (or, rather, not consummated) where contraception has been used in each and every marital act, then there must be something to the argument.

This would be a question for the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith (or whatever they're calling it this week), but I doubt they would address it.  Too much of a hot potato.

Quite right, all the Church would have to do, is to tell couples in the marriage preparation something like "just so you know, there is at least some doubt that a contraceptive act consummates a marriage, and some marriages, where contraception has been consistently employed, have been found ratum sed non consummatum in nullity proceedings for that reason".  I don't know if that is ever mentioned, but I know it wasn't in my own marital preparations (Diocese of Arlington, 1993).

I don't find it at all unseemly, to be concerned about the validity or invalidity of marriages, or to be concerned that people are committing acts that are mortally sinful in the objective order.  One time a year or two ago, a priest in confession, aware of my circumstances (living as a divorced bachelor), out of the clear blue sky, asked me if I had any issues with purity.  I wasn't the least bit offended, I simply replied "no, that's not an issue for me".  But for many men (and even women) without a partner, it certainly is --- think of the unforgettable "contest" episode of Seinfeld (which is a deliciously funny show, basically a minstrel show highlighting the foibles of four self-absorbed Jewish and Jewish-adjacent New York urbanites, and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is a Catholic and Catholic-adjacent "Seinfeld on crack"). It's just good care of souls.  He was just doing his job.

As an aside, I find all of those personality-analysis-type exercises to be a bit silly --- the four temperaments, enneagrams, the Myers-Briggs test, and so on.

I'm sorry it comes across to you that way, but I am just taking to heart the fact that all deliberate and completed sexual sins are, in the objective order, grave matter (thus mortal sin if the two other conditions obtain), as well as Our Lady of Fatima's admonition that "the sins that send more people to hell than any other sins are the sins of the flesh" (and, no, I don't think she was talking about gluttony, drunkenness, and substance abuse).  Also, sexual sin brings all sorts of ills that other sins do not, such as children being conceived without proper provisions for their welfare and education, the perceived need for abortion, venereal diseases, the breakup of homes when one partner cheats on the other, men raising children that aren't theirs (Deo gratias, there is now cheap, quick, easily accessible DNA testing that jerks a knot in the tails of the adulterers involved, babies love to drool and it'd be very easy for Dad to secure a saliva sample), the list goes on.  Sexual sin endangers one's salvation and opens a Pandora's Box of ills.  Everything Paul VI warned about in Humanae vitae has come true in spades.

As to my own family, I have never hesitated to teach my son the intrinsic mortal sinfulness of illicit use of sexuality, including the use of contraception and sterilization.  I have always encouraged him to come to me with any questions --- nothing is "off-limits", he asked me a very frank question the other day which I choose not to share (something about a certain aspect of married life) --- which he does quite often, and I pull no punches.  If, later on in life, he chooses to violate the teachings of the Church, I will have done all I can do.  He is aware of the grave sinfulness of his mother's illicit "remarriage", I've never pulled any punches about that either, and he deplores it.  (We never see her anymore, so as a practical matter it's not something he's exposed to, and the annulment, for which she applied, is in process, it could go either way.)

As to contraception, Paul VI called upon bishops and priests to make the teaching of Humanae vitae a priority, yet the practical response has been largely "crickets".  I have never felt so much admiration for a priest in my whole life, as I did when our diocesan TLM priest admonished the congregation in a sermon that contraception is a mortal sin and that people who are using it must not receive communion.  (Granted, he was preaching to a congregation that is almost totally, if not totally, adherent to HV.)  All priests should do likewise.

Somebody has to speak up and say something.  Paul VI didn't want the response to be "crickets".  (And, bless his life, on this issue, Pope Francis has reiterated the Church's traditional teaching.)  And I shall keep talking about it until the mortician puts in the mouth former and sets my fingers in place.  If even one person reads all of this, everything I've written over the years, and says, possibly after serious reflection (assuming they need to do that), "hey, I'd better stop doing that, I could go to hell for that", it will have all been worth it.