Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Pax Vobis on July 03, 2018, 01:08:41 PM
-
A dowry brought by the woman into a marriage is a time-tested, catholic and historical action meant to help the young marriage and also as an acknowledgment by the woman’s father that she now belongs to her husband, who now has the responsibility to care for her.
If a dowry isn’t given, then why is a prenup not a fair substitute? If the marriage has no problems, then the man gets no advantage from the prenup; he is only protected from divorce should ever the wife leave for non-approved reasons.
If a divorce would happen after a dowry were given, then the “split” would be equitable since the wife contributed. As it is nowadays, no dowry, no prenup, no fairness for the husband. That’s crap.
The end of the dowry tradition is a sure sign of feminism and the idea that a woman is “an exalted princess” who is so special that any man would be happy to live with her, even in a grass hut. Pure Disney, fantasy-land, sentimentality.
-
Good point about the dowry.
Society has done away with the dowry, so all the risk is on the man's shoulders now. He seems to have everything to lose in the bargain, especially if he picks the wrong woman for his wife.
And considering that marriage is virtually always a hormonal/emotional decision -- at least to some degree -- that makes it all the more dangerous for men. Love really is blind. Being infatuated makes you a bit reckless.
God designed it that way, so that people would actually get married. If there weren't any hormones or emotions involved, no one would take the plunge. God is obviously smarter than any of us (needless to say, but I'm saying it anyway!)
-
The tradition of the dowry has mutated into the custom that the bride's family pays for the wedding. These are often absurdly expensive and a very poor use of resources.
-
A dowry brought by the woman into a marriage is a time-tested, catholic and historical action meant to help the young marriage and also as an acknowledgment by the woman’s father that she now belongs to her husband, who now has the responsibility to care for her.
If a dowry isn’t given, then why is a prenup not a fair substitute? If the marriage has no problems, then the man gets no advantage from the prenup; he is only protected from divorce should ever the wife leave for non-approved reasons.
If a divorce would happen after a dowry were given, then the “split” would be equitable since the wife contributed. As it is nowadays, no dowry, no prenup, no fairness for the husband. That’s crap.
The end of the dowry tradition is a sure sign of feminism and the idea that a woman is “an exalted princess” who is so special that any man would be happy to live with her, even in a grass hut. Pure Disney, fantasy-land, sentimentality.
I’ve asked before. What protects the woman in the pre nup? What if the husband is gmtge one pursuing divorce? Croix has mentioned it should state the man gets the children. Shouldn’t it be 50/50? Is she left to her own devices? I can totally see her not getting anything is she left, but I’m curious how it would work for the man if he leaves.
-
The tradition of the dowry has mutated into the custom that the bride's family pays for the wedding. These are often absurdly expensive and a very poor use of resources.
Why spend such ridiculous sums just on a one-day party? The young couple has countless needs, including a *paid off house*. People think nothing of having a 30 year mortgage (french for "death lock") on a small house with no land. How does a couple get enough for a large home that will fit 10+ kids? Hmmm? And what if they want/need some land (read: privacy) so every spanking or yelling by one/both parents is heard by countless busy-body neighbors with their fingers on speed dial for Child Protective Services?
It doesn't matter how hard working or responsible you are. Unemployment isn't just for welfare bums. Bad luck happens. I have been in 2 contract positions in the last year, both of which had an Indian hired AFTER me, and in both cases the Indian will have a full-time job at the company, and I was sent on my merry way. In one case the man needed to be sponsored and everything -- that's how well-established he was (not!) in this country. We have to be able to deal with such "bad luck".
Unless you are lucky enough to inherit land, or the husband is ridiculously talented and/or wealthy, how does a young couple get started on a real legacy? A homestead with some land, so you can do things like store furniture/equipment/stuff to loan out to your grown kids when they need it?
White Americans have totally lost the concept of A) putting down roots, B) family members helping each other out and C) the value of owning land in favor of "convenience", city perks, teenager-like fun "on the town", laziness and sitting in front of the boob tube instead of taking care of acreage, and the uniquely American virtue of rugged individualism.
One of the biggest problems today is that no one has such a "home base" -- a place of stability -- from which to help their children. A nice big place that children can always call "home". What if a grown daughter with 5 children had an emergency, like a house burning down? Where would she go? If her parents had a ranch with multiple finished-out buildings and/or a large house, she'd be set. Just think of all the things you can do if you have a small acreage outside the city. No laws about derelict vehicles, # of buildings you can have on one piece of property, no homeowners associations, plenty of space for outbuildings (read: storage with no monthly fee). Being able to store things means you can take advantage of free stuff, giveaways, clothing, homeschooling materials, etc. and then give or lend it to your children when they need it. You have a place to park RVs, boats, utility trailers, and countless useful pieces of equipment most people can't own because they don't have the space.
Everyone needs at least one person in their life with a "mini ranch" as described above. A person with a fully equipped workshop, who has welding equipment for example, or at least a utility trailer. Even better if you know one person with a mid-sized garden tractor, and/or a backhoe.
-
I’ve asked before. What protects the woman in the pre nup? What if the husband is gmtge one pursuing divorce? Croix has mentioned it should state the man gets the children. Shouldn’t it be 50/50? Is she left to her own devices? I can totally see her not getting anything is she left, but I’m curious how it would work for the man if he leaves.
This has been covered on other threads, but a summary (in my mind) is:
1. First of all, a prenup does not, and will not ever, prevent child support. Ladislaus thought this was the case, so I researched it and he's absolutely correct. So, if a wife divorces her husband, she will be able to legally steal the children (90% of the time), and she will get child support (which is pretty costly and non-negotiable). So, when you ask the question "who protects the woman in a prenup?" The answer is: all 50 states of our country, everytime, everyday and twice on mondays.
2. If the husband/wife gets a divorce, for non church-approved reasons (i.e. outside of adultery, or violence), there would be financial penalties for the spouse getting a divorce. These would most likely be what is agreed upon in the docuмent, but would include things like:
a. Husband owned a boat, or the house before marriage, so he wants to keep that (assuming he's not the one getting a divorce).
b. Wife could keep her furniture, or anything she brought to the marriage, like a car or her crock pot (i'm kidding about the crock pot).
The point is, the spouse who is getting divorced, screwed, and injured by the evil spouse should have some recourse in getting to keep assets they owned previous to the marriage. And they should not be forced to pay more than 50% (including child support) by the courts. In the case of husband, he can (and still should) support his family post-divorce, but a fair split will not have the courts breathing down his neck and giving him the 'Big brother' business and treating him like a convict.
3. If there WASN'T a prenup, then an evil spouse can divorce and take 50% of the assets. If the husband is the one getting a divorce, he still has to pay child support, and he will probably lose the house (and of course, the children), so he's really screwed. However, if he's the one BEING DIVORCED, the same things happen to him. So he's screwed either way.
If a wife is divorced by the husband, she keeps the children, gets child support and (at least) 50% of the finances (in addition to child support). She wins.
If a wife is the one who starts the divorce, she gets the same thing. She wins again.
A prenup would help to keep things equitable for the husband ONLY IF he's the one being divorced. If he initiates the divorce, he deserves to be hurt financially, AND SO DOES THE WOMAN. But the woman will never be hurt financially unless there's a prenup. (and even if there's a prenup, the judges nowadays have lots of leeway to be feminist and make their own decisions. So even a prenup is not a guarantee for the husband).
-
This sounds reasonable to me.
-
Thank, i was curious how it would layout what’s happens if one of them cheated, or was abusive.
-
With prenups though, the Church or some disinterested third party would have to draw them up.
A) to be fair. To cover things like what constitutes abuse, etc. Some things are too subjective to leave to chance.
B) so neither party thinks the other party "doesn't trust them"
It would have to be routine, simply part of the marriage process in the Catholic Church in the fallen age of 2018.
-
I'm sorry, but I still don't get the point of a prenup in a Catholic context.
If there's a divorce and the wife ends up with custody of the children (as she is likely to do unless she's a criminal or drug addict), I've never seen any divorce judgment which completely impoverishes a man; every one I've heard about (directly from the divorced individual) simply makes provision that the wife and children continue to be supported, which is morally required anyway for Catholics.
All this huffing and puffing about the inequity of divorce judgments comes from men who might thereby be deprived of starting up and supporting a new family ... at the standard of living they envision. I know a guy at work who has been divorced twice and is on his third "marriage". He has 5 children from the previous 2 "marriages" and currently support his new "wife" (aka partner in sin) along with her two children. So despite paying child support for the previous 5 children, he's still able to manage supporting the new woman and her kids (and she doesn't work). He makes just a little less than I do.
And I've knows lots of divorced guys. Courts usually let them retain enough of their income and assets to start new families ... albeit with some difficulty.
Now, most of the bitterness you get comes from the situation where the woman shacks up with a new guy. So the old husband continues to help support the children, while the two of them use the new guy's income to live large as it were. Perhaps that might be a clause in a pre-nup. But what if the woman is just having an affair and not actually re-"married". So the guy would have to prove that an affair were taking place. And of course the wife will always find it offensive that the husband would imagine her capable of doing such a thing.
-
I wasn't going to respond to this, 1) because this is the 2nd/3rd time Ladislaus has brought up these arguments and I partially responded to it before, which he ignored, so (as is his m.o. sometimes), he will just bring it up again on a different thread and act like the previous rebuttals don't exist.
I'm sorry, but I still don't get the point of a prenup in a Catholic context.
If there's a divorce and the wife ends up with custody of the children (as she is likely to do unless she's a criminal or drug addict), I've never seen any divorce judgment which completely impoverishes a man; every one I've heard about (directly from the divorced individual) simply makes provision that the wife and children continue to be supported, which is morally required anyway for Catholics.
The Court does not nicely ask the husband to support his family, they strip him of his familial authority and force him to support them AS THEY DECIDE. This is pure socialism and police state tactics.
All this huffing and puffing about the inequity of divorce judgments comes from men who might thereby be deprived of starting up and supporting a new family ... at the standard of living they envision.
Firstly, this is illogical. Let's remember, the prenup is mainly designed to prevent a wife from leaving. In the case of a husband leaving, a prenup wouldn't affect anything, so the courts would decide and the woman would be fine.
But in the case where the woman gets the divorce, why would the husband (and we're talking about a trad catholic here) be thinking about a new family? HE'S THE ONE WHO DOESN'T WANT HIS REAL WIFE TO LEAVE. But you brush that "insignificant" detail aside and immediately blame the reasons for a prenup on bad will of the husband - the husband whose children were stolen and whose wife left him.
Secondly, even if the husband were to have such intents of a new marriage, this is irrelevant to the justice required by a court system. Let's say a known drug addict/pusher had been in prison and got out, only to find that his mother had died and she left him her small house in the will. And let's say one day the guy comes home to find the house was on fire and eventually burned to the ground. Let's say the insurance company takes him to court and try to get out of paying for the house by blaming his drug activities as the cause of the fire. Even if the judge, the entire court room (and all of his family) knows that the addict is going to spend the $ on drugs/parties, THIS IS IRRELEVANT IN A COURT OF LAW. The judge is not allowed to rule on what the addict MIGHT DO with the money. It's none of his concern. The judge must rule in favor of the addict that the insurance company owes him $ based on the policy/contract language.
So it is with this scenario. We are talking about justice here, plain and simple. In the case of divorce, the husband owes child support and there's no getting around this (even though I object on the principals of anti-socialism and a libertarian view of america...but that's another matter).
But what does he owe his wife, who is the cause of this marital turmoil? At best, it should be up to him to decide. At worse, he should only owe 50% (with child support part of this). Humanly speaking, if a wife ends a divorce for non-church-approved reasons, she is not entitled to ANY support from her husband. That's just logical. If she wants out of the marriage, she should be treated as if she's out of the marriage.
But we know there's more to marriage than just a human contract. So, spiritually, the husband would still be obligated to support his wife (but it's his decision, not the courts).
I know a guy at work who has been divorced twice and is on his third "marriage". He has 5 children from the previous 2 "marriages" and currently support his new "wife" (aka partner in sin) along with her two children. So despite paying child support for the previous 5 children, he's still able to manage supporting the new woman and her kids (and she doesn't work). He makes just a little less than I do.
What state was that in? Not all states treat this stuff the same...not by a long shot.
Was this a Trad family? If not, then you are comparing apples-oranges. A "normal" american family with 2 kids usually has a working mother, so any payments by the husband will be FAR LESS than what a Trad husband would pay, since 1) the wife's income is able to support her so she needs less help, and 2) A trad husband (typically) is the sole earner, which means his support is going to be VERY HIGH because the wife doesn't work. Based on simple math, this should be obvious that your experiences don't translate to a Trad marriage.
Now, most of the bitterness you get comes from the situation where the woman shacks up with a new guy. So the old husband continues to help support the children, while the two of them use the new guy's income to live large as it were. Perhaps that might be a clause in a pre-nup.
A prenup can't prevent anything happening AFTER the divorce, it's only concerned and only able to legally work BEFORE or DURING the divorce. So that's why there should be penalties for a wife who leaves the marriage. The husband should control as much as possible, that way
1) he can have leverage on the wife and be able to NOT support her (except minimally) if she's living in an immoral situation with another man (because that is detrimental to her salvation AND the children's).
2) if she divorces and stays single, and let's him have a catholic influence on the children, then he's able to be GENEROUS and give them MORE than even the courts would've required.
But what if the woman is just having an affair and not actually re-"married". So the guy would have to prove that an affair were taking place. And of course the wife will always find it offensive that the husband would imagine her capable of doing such a thing.
If the husband is able to keep financial leverage after the divorce then he can (hopefully) have some influence on this situation. In absence of a prenup, where the immoral woman divorces and gets 50% PLUS child support, she's financially set and can go do whatever it is that she wants. And considering that SHE'S the one that destroyed the family, we can pretty well assume that she won't have the grace to stay out of trouble or live a moral life. Because until she reconciles with her husband and moves back in with him, the salvation of her soul is in serious jeopardy. She's living in constant mortal sin, every day she's not reconciled because every day, she is rejecting her vows and harming her children, therefore there is no grace, no wisdom, no Providential protection afforded to her from God, because she's obstinately living in sin.
-
Pax wherever you are getting your info it seems far fetched I’m sorry.
I gave several examples on another thread of Catholic couples I know personally that never had courts ‘take over’ their handling of divorce or separation.
If by chance you know a man who lost everything because the courts got involved, then it would most definitely be a rare case and not the rule. Besides it may have been his fault no one knows the inner workings of a marriage except for the couple, and God.
Our world is becoming more and more corrupt and that includes our Country. But very soon a prenup will have no meaning anyway because it can’t. Eventually (those especially who are Catholic) there won’t be allowed any freedoms whatsoever. Who knows we may be on our way to martyrdom for The Faith, so divorce proceedings and financial security should be least on a Catholics mind during these times. We’re going to be left with nothing in the end anyway.
Time to sort out our salvation with fear and trembling.
-
The courts will be involved as long as both parties can’t agree on things. If a wife initiates the divorce, steals the children and wants the house too, I’m pretty sure the husband isn’t going along with that. Ergo, a judge will be involved.
-
We are talking about justice here, plain and simple. In the case of divorce, the husband owes child support and there's no getting around this (even though I object on the principals of anti-socialism and a libertarian view of america...but that's another matter).
But what does he owe his wife, who is the cause of this marital turmoil? At best, it should be up to him to decide. At worse, he should only owe 50% (with child support part of this). Humanly speaking, if a wife ends a divorce for non-church-approved reasons, she is not entitled to ANY support from her husband. That's just logical. If she wants out of the marriage, she should be treated as if she's out of the marriage.
OK, so your provision for divorce would allow for child support but not alimony? In my state, alimony only goes for a couple of years, and then only if the husband makes significantly more than the wife. If the wife makes more, typically there's no alimony. In fact, I've seen it the other way around, where the wife had to pay alimony to the man because she made more than he did. But then he had to pay child support if she had custody of the kids. And the child support typically depends on the percentage of custody, so if it's 50-50 custody, the child support would be reduced accordingly. I've never seen anything that seemed even remotely unfair to me by way of divorce judgments in my state.
-
If by chance you know a man who lost everything because the courts got involved, then it would most definitely be a rare case and not the rule.
This entire conversation is about avoiding a RARE occurrence. But rare doesn’t mean it can’t happen, therefore you try to avoid it. “Hope for the best, plan for the worst.”
Most people live their lives like they’ll get a deathbed conversion and then they’ll make heaven, which is rare. I don’t live my life like most people, and I don’t like to leave “rare” occurrences to chance, if I can help it.
-
One aspect of prenups that we haven't discussed here is that marriage DOES require a lot of TRUST. Each spouse has to trust the other not to have affairs or do other bad things. I don't and can't watch my wife 24/7 to make sure she doesn't commit adultery. I simply trust her not to. And, then, shouldn't she be insulted if I did stalk her all the time to make sure she wasn't even flirting with other men, etc.? She could rightly respond that she's insulted and offended that I do not trust her. Same thing applies to prenups, as the prospective wife would rightly be left wondering whether the man trusts her not to want to get a divorce. I know my wife. She would NEVER consider a divorce. That's not even an issue. Consequently, I would never have even for a moment countenanced getting a prenup in the event of divorce. That would have indeed been an insult to her. So it's a bad way to start off a marriage and can kill a relationship from the start, where the wife feels that you don't trust her. I'd rather deal with the fallout from the civil court system than to basically tell my wife that I don't completely trust her. For several months, I had a contractor working at our home while I was at work. I never had the slightest bit of distrust of my wife. What if I told her that I was going to install a "nanny cam" to make sure nothing ever happened between them? She would rightly be insulted because that would indeed be a slam on her character. Besides that, all she would have to do if she really wanted to was to drive off and meet someone elsewhere. Trust is absolutely essential to the marriage relationship, and a prenup undermines that right out of the gate. So you'd cause the prospective wife to think, "What does he think of me and my character that he would think me capable of seeking a divorce? Does he not believe that I am committed to my marriage vows?"
-
And, on top of everything else, if my wife were to leave me and take the kids, money would be the least of my concerns. On my own I could probably live on $150-$200 per week.
-
And, on top of everything else, if my wife were to leave me and take the kids, money would be the least of my concerns.
THIS ^^^^
-
And, on top of everything else, if my wife were to leave me and take the kids, money would be the least of my concerns. On my own I could probably live on $150-$200 per week.
Ladislaus demonstrates here a sign of true masculinity.
Stinginess and aversion to suffering are clearly forms of effeminacy.
When a married man is over - concerned about his wife *stealing his money*, even if this is for the support of his own children, that is effeminate and incredibly selfish.
Women run from stingy men because when trying to find a mate, we instinctively look for a man who is able to provide for us and the future offspring. It is a biological instinct of survival for ourselves and our children. A man who is incapable of doing this, is not a good prospect for Marriage.
Men complanining of the reality that women are attracted to resources are as silly as women complaining that men are attracted to beauty and fertility.
Those are just simple facts of life. Complaining about it in a spirit of evident resentment is not going to make any difference. We are wired that way for the simple survival of the species. Either you measure up or you remove yourself from the gene pool.
-
I am going to add here that it is far better for a woman to marry a man of moderate means, but who is generous and selfless; than marry a rich man who is stingy and a miser.
-
And, on top of everything else, if my wife were to leave me and take the kids, money would be the least of my concerns. On my own I could probably live on $150-$200 per week.
I'm impressed.
But how about the extraordinary men, (virum virile)... who go the extra mile?
These resourceful, self sacrificing men, catch and fry freshwater fish as an economical protein supplement.
(https://iconfilms.co.uk/assets/galleries/84/MG3012.jpg)
This allows them to keep their single & displaced, cost-of-living budget well below $100/week.
-
I'm impressed.
But how about the extraordinary men, (virum virile)... who go the extra mile?
These resourceful, self sacrificing men, catch and fry freshwater fish as an economical protein supplement.
(https://iconfilms.co.uk/assets/galleries/84/MG3012.jpg)
This allows them to keep their single & displaced, cost-of-living budget well below $100/week.
Silly Incred, that's a pic from Dancing with the Gars.
-
On my own I could probably live on $150-$200 per week.
Such a ridiculous comment. So you could live on $800 a month, huh? Post-taxes, that’s $5/hr. No one can live on that.
RENT, health insurance, car insurance, car maint, food, water, gasoline, heating/AC, Church donations, misc items - all on $800. ?? No bleeping way.
-
Such a ridiculous comment. So you could live on $800 a month, huh? Post-taxes, that’s $5/hr. No one can live on that.
RENT, health insurance, car insurance, car maint, food, water, gasoline, heating/AC, Church donations, misc items - all on $800. ?? No bleeping way.
Maybe he owns his home/trailer/tent, has no health insurance, no car therefore no maintenance or gas, no heating or a/c, no church. Who knows? Homeless people live on far less than $200 per week.
-
Stinginess and aversion to suffering are clearly forms of effeminacy.
Is one being stingy when they take precautions to avoid criminals stealing their money? Is one adverse to suffering if they avoid bad parts of town so they won’t get beat up and robbed?
It’s not effeminate to take precautions to avoid evil, immoral and unjust people. It’s called prudence and wisdom.
A woman has NO RIGHT, nor does the court system, to frivolously divorce a man, steal his children and be rewarded financially through the legal system. God does NOT require us to accept unjust actions from another. To accept injustice, lies, and theft, without respecting yourself and defending yourself...THAT is the definition of effeminacy.
That is what a police state is designed to do - enable the atmosphere of socialism through govt corruption, legalized theft and learned helplessness.
If we turn the question around and ask: Women, if men could LEGALLY cheat on you, divorce you, take the children and then give you nothing and act like you never existed...aren’t you being “unwomanly” to stand up for your rights? A good, catholic woman is passive and accepts all things from God, therefore if you didn’t trust your husband and he did these things and you sued him, you’d be uncatholic. Right? That’s your logic, isn’t it?
-
If we turn the question around and ask: Women, if men could LEGALLY cheat on you, divorce you, take the children and then give you nothing and act like you never existed...aren’t you being “unwomanly” to stand up for your rights? A good, catholic woman is passive and accepts all things from God, therefore if you didn’t trust your husband and he did these things and you sued him, you’d be uncatholic. Right? That’s your logic, isn’t it?
For those with the Catholic spirit, divorce is simply out of the question. Period. That is the correct disposition.
If your spouse divorces you, that is an indication that he / she does not have the Catholic spirit, and that you did not use prudence and wisdom selecting him / her in the first place, and you must assume the full consequences of your error.
Sure, a spouse may apostatize at any time; in such case, it is a real misfortune. But that does not mean that you should enter into a Marriage with a worldly pre-disposition of distrust and selfishness.
An error in your youth can literally ruin your entire life for real. That is the nature of earthly life and it is a cross to bear. Catholics do not run away from earthly crosses though, but face them whenever they come, with heroic virtue.
Why Catholics should seek solutions from the world?
-
So first you say that a divorce is due to a poor choice of partner, then you admit that a partner can apostacize and choose evil. You contradict yourself.
-
Second, we live in the world. We decide things based on sense knowledge. The same wisdom we use to discern a potential spouse, we must use to acknowledge that human emotion is fleeting and arbitrary. Only grace can keep a marriage together and grace is only promised to those that pray.
If you fail to admit that the court system is against men, and against marriages, then you’re naive. If you think that men should just “accept it and move on” then you’re a feminist.
-
I'm impressed.
But how about the extraordinary men, (virum virile)... who go the extra mile?
These resourceful, self sacrificing men, catch and fry freshwater fish as an economical protein supplement.
(https://iconfilms.co.uk/assets/galleries/84/MG3012.jpg)
This allows them to keep their single & displaced, cost-of-living budget well below $100/week.
Real men could live for free. I'm afraid I don't measure up that way.
-
Such a ridiculous comment. So you could live on $800 a month, huh? Post-taxes, that’s $5/hr. No one can live on that.
RENT, health insurance, car insurance, car maint, food, water, gasoline, heating/AC, Church donations, misc items - all on $800. ?? No bleeping way.
You can rent a room for about $300-$350 a month in my part of the country (utilities included). There are lots of elderly couples who want an extra income in their retirement and are stretched thin and will rent out rooms. Of course, my Mother is still alive and I could always move in with her until she passes away ... eliminating rent altogether. She would probably like the company and the help around the house. What would I need a house for? And I would rent it close enough to my job that I could walk or ride a bike or, worst case, ride a bus. No, I wouldn't have much left over to donate to the Church, but God would recognize that. Rest would be food and clothing. As it is I spend no more than $100 per year on clothing (just ask my wife, who sometimes gets on me about that). I have lots of traditional Hungarian recipes that are extremely inexpensive and yet very satisfying. $800 would be no problem for me. I've lived on less than that at different points in my life.
-
If your spouse divorces you, that is an indication that he / she does not have the Catholic spirit, and that you did not use prudence and wisdom selecting him / her in the first place, and you must assume the full consequences of your error.
Indeed, and in the real world, 99% of the time the husband had SOMETHING to do with it and helped drive the wife away. So, for instance, while it would not justify divorce, many guys can be complete jackasses and treat their wives poorly. While still not justifying divorce, the husband clearly has SOME blame for the breakdown. Honestly, I've rarely known a woman would wouldn't love even a big-time loser if only he showed her love, respect, and affection ... and gave her the attention that women crave. Just ask my wife :).
-
More feminization and condoning of women getting a divorce. ...A major problem with society today is the coddling of emotional decisions, the promotion of sentiment over reason and the use of passion in place of logic. All of these are examples of FEMINISM - the feminine mindset subverting/dominating the masculine mindset.
Catholicism teaches the complete opposite. Ones emotions are subjected to reason. Females are subjected to males. Humanity is subjected to Truth.
-
It’s simple human psychology: if you reward bad behavior and if there are no consequences, then bad behavior continues.
If a woman can get a divorce, have her children, and get financially rewarded for it, what incentive is there to not do so (aside from the spiritual consequences, which are easily ignored, as our lives repeatedly show)? There’s EXTRA incentive for the woman, who lives her life by emotion, if she can blame her actions on some vague, unqualified excuse of “not being loved enough”.
How can anyone argue with feelings? You can’t. (This is how Satan gets many of us to sin). Therefore, to condone a woman’s actions, which 99% of the time are based on emotion, AND to legally (and socially) reward actions on these emotions, is the definition of feminism, which is just a form of social insanity. For pure emotion is an absence of reason and an absence of reason is a lack of intellect, likened to the animal nature.
-
For several months, I had a contractor working at our home while I was at work. I never had the slightest bit of distrust of my wife.
I know a wife of 7 children who left her husband (and kids!...the youngest was like 3) and moved to florida with a contractor she met while he was working on the house. They weren't a trad family but still, a nice novus ordo family. They were pretty well-off too. I think the wife was just tired of raising kids and wanted a fun life. It certainly wasn't because the husband beat her or had a gambling problem. Very, very sad situation. Most of the kids turned out with many problems.
-
Indeed, and in the real world, 99% of the time the husband had SOMETHING to do with it and helped drive the wife away. So, for instance, while it would not justify divorce, many guys can be complete jackasses and treat their wives poorly. While still not justifying divorce, the husband clearly has SOME blame for the breakdown. Honestly, I've rarely known a woman would wouldn't love even a big-time loser if only he showed her love, respect, and affection ... and gave her the attention that women crave. Just ask my wife
I get pretty snappy myself if I feel like my husband is taking advantage of me. Wives should be submissive to their husbands, but not their servants. I mean we have feelings too lol no one wants to feel like their hard work goes unnoticed, or that no one appreciates it. Husband need that same kind of support! Wives who tell them they see the sacrifices they make for the family, they see how hard working they are, and how the family would fall apart with out them. Wives need to hear it too, and a little romance goes along way.
-
You can rent a room for about $300-$350 a month in my part of the country (utilities included). There are lots of elderly couples who want an extra income in their retirement and are stretched thin and will rent out rooms. Of course, my Mother is still alive and I could always move in with her until she passes away ... eliminating rent altogether. She would probably like the company and the help around the house. What would I need a house for? And I would rent it close enough to my job that I could walk or ride a bike or, worst case, ride a bus. No, I wouldn't have much left over to donate to the Church, but God would recognize that. Rest would be food and clothing. As it is I spend no more than $100 per year on clothing (just ask my wife, who sometimes gets on me about that). I have lots of traditional Hungarian recipes that are extremely inexpensive and yet very satisfying. $800 would be no problem for me. I've lived on less than that at different points in my life.
Something tells me your wife does the majority of shopping for necessities. I think you might get 'sticker shock' if you really added things up. Things cost quite a bit more than they used to due to inflation.
-
I know a wife of 7 children who left her husband (and kids!...the youngest was like 3) and moved to florida with a contractor she met while he was working on the house. They weren't a trad family but still, a nice novus ordo family. They were pretty well-off too. I think the wife was just tired of raising kids and wanted a fun life. It certainly wasn't because the husband beat her or had a gambling problem. Very, very sad situation. Most of the kids turned out with many problems.
You think? It certainly wasnt??
How do you know, either way?
I think you shouldn't presume. Many wives can hide abuse well. Gambling is not a Catholic reason for leaving, but it could be grounds for legal temporary separation so the husband couldn't make the family destitute.
.
Satan is everywhere, even in the best families; probably more so.
-
How do you know, either way?
I think you shouldn't presume.
I know the family VERY well. My relatives were some of their best friends. The wife left with another man and moved to florida; classic case of adultery. I know for a FACT there was ABSOLUTELY no domestic abuse.
-
I know the family VERY well. My relatives were some of their best friends. The wife left with another man and moved to florida; classic case of adultery. I know for a FACT there was ABSOLUTELY no domestic abuse.
Doesn't sound like you know them well:
"I think the wife was just tired of raising kids and wanted a fun life. "
-
Something tells me your wife does the majority of shopping for necessities. I think you might get 'sticker shock' if you really added things up. Things cost quite a bit more than they used to due to inflation.
No, it's more about distinguishing between one absolutely needs and what one wants. I know what things cost.
-
If a woman can get a divorce, have her children, and get financially rewarded for it, what incentive is there to not do so (aside from the spiritual consequences, which are easily ignored, as our lives repeatedly show)?
I've bolded the key phrase. That's why you have to marry the right woman, one who would not ignore the GRAVE spiritual consequences that divorce entails. Yes, we all fail in little ways and in little things, but the right person will not make this grave a decision. Hey, at that point, she could just try to find a way to kill you off without getting caught ... and that would circuмvent the prenup quite nicely.
-
Just don't marry a woman that you cannot trust to remain faithful. If you're suspicious out of the gate that she might have an affair or leave you altogether, then she's not a good candidate for marriage. You can put any prenup you want in place, but the wrong woman will just have an affair anyway ... if she thinks she can do it without getting caught.
-
Just don't marry a woman that you cannot trust to remain faithful
Marry a virgin, as the Church advices. There seems to be a link between the number of partners a woman has had before Marriage, and her propensity to cheat and divorce later on.
See, everything that the Church teaches is for a good reason; even from a secular point of view.
-
It used to be, (at least where I am from, as my grandmother told me) that if a man found that his bride was not a virgin in the first night, she was promptly returned in shame to her father's house the next day.
Virginity used to be a real treasure for a woman. Losing it to a man who did not deserve it (not your husband in a long-life commitment) made you quite worthless.
-
Marry a virgin, as the Church advices.
Could you give references for this please?
-
Marry a virgin, as the Church advices. There seems to be a link between the number of partners a woman has had before Marriage, and her propensity to cheat and divorce later on.
See, everything that the Church teaches is for a good reason; even from a secular point of view.
That’s kinda a bold statement.
And, what does that say about men..? Everyone should come to marriage a virgin. But that’s hard to find in this world these days.
-
It used to be, (at least where I am from, as my grandmother told me) that if a man found that his bride was not a virgin in the first night, she was promptly returned in shame to her father's house the next day.
Virginity used to be a real treasure for a woman. Losing it to a man who did not deserve it (not your husband in a long-life commitment) made you quite worthless.
This should go both ways too. Historically, there's been something of a double standard where women were expected to be virgins but it didn't matter for men. Well, it should. Part of that is due to the fact that there's no way to physically verify virginity in a man. And, conversely, some women have lost the physical proof of virginity for other reasons (accidents or medical issues) and were considered not to be virgins on account of the mere physical sign being lacking.
-
That's why you have to marry the right woman, one who would not ignore the GRAVE spiritual consequences that divorce entails.
Only God can read hearts. Only He knows the future. You only know a person so well before marriage.
If a woman is pious and has good intentions, they why wouldn't she sign a prenup? It's only going to affect her if she goes rouge and gets a divorce. If the marriage is happy, a prenup is meaningless, both to husband and wife.
-
Virginity used to be a real treasure for a woman. Losing it to a man who did not deserve it (not your husband in a long-life commitment) made you quite worthless.
In God's eyes, such a woman is not worthless. She is a precious soul for whom Christ died. She is called to repentance and a renewed commitment to virtue.
-
I've bolded the key phrase. That's why you have to marry the right woman, one who would not ignore the GRAVE spiritual consequences that divorce entails. Yes, we all fail in little ways and in little things, but the right person will not make this grave a decision. Hey, at that point, she could just try to find a way to kill you off without getting caught ... and that would circuмvent the prenup quite nicely.
:jester:
-
Could you give references for this please?
It is implicit in the Catholic teaching that premarital sex is sinful. Catholics are to flee from all sɛҳuąƖ immorality as St. Paul clearly teaches in Corinthians 1, 7:2. Sex before marriage is an example of sɛҳuąƖ immorality. That is why the Catholic Church strongly encourages couples to be completely chaste until Marriage under pain of mortal sin. The only sɛҳuąƖ behavior that is licit is that between husband and wife (also within parameters of chastity). Other than that, there are only fornication and adultery. Both which are mortal sins and therefore, cause of eternal perdition.
-
This should go both ways too. Historically, there's been something of a double standard where women were expected to be virgins but it didn't matter for men. Well, it should. Part of that is due to the fact that there's no way to physically verify virginity in a man.
I agree; but I do not think it is just a matter of a social construct; but that there are serious biological differences between men and women which causes this. Generally, it is the women who actually set the social and moral standards of society. As women go, so goes society.
Feminists are all for defending female sɛҳuąƖ freedom and ultra-egalitarianism of both genders. If the men can sleep around, why not the women, they object. The tools for this sɛҳuąƖ female liberation, besides the propaganda of utter mental and moral corruption, have been mainly the contraceptive pill and abortion on demand. I think one of the most fundamental lies of Feminism, is telling girls that they can be as "sɛҳuąƖly active" as the men, without any consequences. This lie is fueled by the perception of injustice in the question of why men are free to have sex and women are not. It creates resentment on a lot of girls who are actually unaware of the male nature and how it relates to the female nature (for example, the major disparity there exists in the male vs. female libidos, or how sex does not bond men but does women). A lot of the promiscuity in modern girls is not due to any actual concupiscence; but is a mere resentful action of rebellion against the perceived injustice.
-
If the men can sleep around, why not the women, they object.
Except that I'm arguing the converse. If women can't sleep around, why should men be able to?
-
I agree; but I do not think it is just a matter of a social construct; but that there are serious biological differences between men and women which causes this.
Yes, there's the biological issue in particular that a woman always knows that a child is hers, whereas a man isn't necessarily as certain. Yet I'm not arguing from the standpoint of biological imperatives, but from Catholic moral standards.
-
In God's eyes, such a woman is not worthless. She is a precious soul for whom Christ died. She is called to repentance and a renewed commitment to virtue.
Surely. Amendment of life is always possible in Christ, not matter the gravity of the sin.
-
Except that I'm arguing the converse. If women can't sleep around, why should men be able to?
Haha :D. Of course!.
The Church teaches chastity for both sexes and condemns sex outside Marriage under pain of mortal sin, in both men and women. That is all we need to know really.
I am not a man so I will never really know for sure how difficult is their struggle against unchastity; but I suspect that it is way more difficult than for a woman.
Women have our own battles too, though. Vanity and envy come to mind ::).
-
In God's eyes, such a woman is not worthless. She is a precious soul for whom Christ died. She is called to repentance and a renewed commitment to virtue.
Agreed. There are many women who, having fallen at some point in their lives, later develop a greater degree of virtue than many virgins. In fact, the falls can militate against pride ... which actually displease God more (in a sense) than sɛҳuąƖ immorality. I've known some otherwise-virtuous women (and men) who look down with contempt on those who have fallen in this area, and at the same time a number of women who had checkered pasts who have more humility and compassion for sinners. Women can be virgins in spirit even if they no longer possess the attribute physically. Some are virgins because they were not particularly attractive to men and perhaps likely would have fallen had they been approached by some attractive man's advances. Some who are virgins may not have been had their circuмstances been different; some who are not virgins may have been had their circuмstances been different. At the end of the day, God knows hearts in spirit and in truth. I've know quite a few women who did not keep their virginity until marriage who now have hearts of gold. And the Passion of Christ is more powerful than any sin, even a mountain of sin, and even the combined sin of all mankind has no chance against Him.
-
I am not a man so I will never really know for sure how difficult is their struggle against unchastity; but I suspect that it is way more difficult than for a woman.
Well, in the realm of thought and the sense of sight, which can trouble men more than women, it's certainly more difficult for men. But in the realm of physical chastity, I believe that it's actually more difficult for women. Why? Because, for men, unless they're in the top 5-10% of men in terms of looks and masculinity, we're not going to be aggressively hit on by women. But 90-95% of women will be pursued sɛҳuąƖly by some man. I've known some average-looking women who said that even before they were married they sometimes wore wedding rings to deter these types of advances. Men are the aggressors in this area. As a man, on the other hand, all I had to do (since I'm not in that upper echelon of men in terms of attractiveness) was to not go after women. I would have had to make a conscious deliberate choice to pursue impure relations. Whereas the impure advances find women passively and can become occasions of sin for them. And male predators know how to work on women, what to say, and how to make them feel good about themselves, and temp them to give in ... especially when the women are young and not yet emotionally mature. So I would say that it's more difficult for a man to remain chaste mentally, but more difficult for a woman to remain chaste physically. [Of course here I exclude solitary physical sins against purity that men could commit. I am referring to fornication in particular.]
-
Vanity and envy come to mind ::).
Interesting that you point this out, because I have JUST started to notice very recently that women are more prone to envy than men are. I've always understood about vanity of course, but envy came as something of a surprise.
-
I don't want to cause scandal by giving the impression that I have gotten excessively familiar with women over the years. It's just that, for some reason, when I was but a seminarian especially, lots of women poured out their hearts to me ... practically making general confessions. They sought me out for spiritual advice despite the fact that I was not ordained. I think that there was something about me that made them comfortable talking to me about things when they hesitated to talk to their priest. Despite my forum persona, I'm actually an extremely mild-mannered person.
-
It is implicit in the Catholic teaching that premarital sex is sinful. Catholics are to flee from all sɛҳuąƖ immorality as St. Paul clearly teaches in Corinthians 1, 7:2. Sex before marriage is an example of sɛҳuąƖ immorality. That is why the Catholic Church strongly encourages couples to be completely chaste until Marriage under pain of mortal sin. The only sɛҳuąƖ behavior that is licit is that between husband and wife (also within parameters of chastity). Other than that, there are only fornication and adultery. Both which are mortal sins and therefore, cause of eternal perdition.
Teaching that premarital sex is sinful is not the same as the Church advising to marry a virgin. Yes, the ideal is that the husband and wife are virgins at the time of the marriage because they have followed Catholic teaching. But there is nothing in this teaching which implies that one should not marry a person who has been unchaste and repented.
-
It's a bad idea.
-
Despite my forum persona, I'm actually an extremely mild-mannered person.
Umm... Your forum persona comes across to me as "actually an extremely mild-mannered person".
:cheers:
-
Some are virgins because they were not particularly attractive to men and perhaps likely would have fallen had they been approached by some attractive man's advances. Some who are virgins may not have been had their circuмstances been different; some who are not virgins may have been had their circuмstances been different.
I believe that the exalted virgins praised by the Church were so, not out of mere necessity (just because they were ugly and no one wanted them, for instance); but out of a pure, a conscious choice to remain chaste. The merit is in the choice. The sacrifice. That is the virtue of purity which is really praised by the Church and worthy of sainthood.
It is the same with men. For example, if a man remains faithful to his wife even though he has many opportunities to be with other women, that is truly heroic and should be praised. Not the same with a man who just happens not to ever have such opportunity or options; but if he actually did, he would surely commit adultery. There is no merit on that.
St. Jerome said something on this regard:
If you introduce old women, and soothsayers, and prophets, and vendors of jewels and silken clothing, you imperil her chastity; if you shut the door upon them, she is injured and fancies you suspect her. But what is the good of even a careful guardian, when an unchaste wife cannot be watched, and a chaste one ought not to be? For necessity is but a faithless keeper of chastity, and she alone really deserves to be called pure, who is free to sin if she chooses. If a woman be fair, she soon finds lovers; if she be ugly, it is easy to be wanton. It is difficult to guard what many long for. It is annoying to have what no one thinks worth possessing.
But the misery of having an ugly wife is less than that of watching a comely one. Nothing is safe, for which a whole people sighs and longs. One man entices with his figure, another with his brains, another with his wit, another with his open hand. Somehow, or sometime, the fortress is captured which is attacked on all sides.
-
St. Jerome on chastity recommended to women:
It is the saying of a very learned man, that chastity must be preserved at all costs, and that when it is lost all virtue falls to the ground. This holds the primacy of all virtues in woman. This it is that makes up for a wife's poverty, enhances her riches, redeems her deformity, gives grace to her beauty; it makes her act in a way worthy of her forefathers whose blood it does not taint with bastard offspring; of her children, who through it have no need to blush for their mother, or to be in doubt about their father; and above all, of herself, since it defends her from external violation. There is no greater calamity connected with captivity than to be the victim of another's lust.
The consulship sheds lustre upon men; eloquence gives eternal renown; military glory and a triumph immortalise an obscure family. Many are the spheres ennobled by splendid ability. The virtue of woman is, in a special sense, purity. It was this that made Lucretia the equal of Brutus, if it did not make her his superior, since Brutus learnt from a woman the impossibility of being a slave. It was this that made Cornelia a fit match for Gracchus, and Porcia for a second Brutus. Tanaquil is better known than her husband. His name, like the names of many other kings, is lost in the mists of antiquity. She, through a virtue rare among women, is too deeply rooted in the hearts of all ages for her memory ever to perish.
Let my married sisters copy the examples of Theano, Cleobuline, Gorgente, Timoclia, the Claudias and Cornelias; and when they find the Apostle conceding second marriage to depraved women, they will read that before the light of our religion shone upon the world wives of one husband ever held high rank among matrons.
http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/canttales/wbpro/jer-men.html
-
I believe that the exalted virgins praised by the Church were so, not out of mere necessity (just because they were ugly and no one wanted them, for instance); but out of a pure, a conscious choice to remain chaste. The merit is in the choice. The sacrifice. That is the virtue of purity which is really praised by the Church and worthy of sainthood.
This girl, a perfect example of true chastity:
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27867594_823027391215116_7782079543602776084_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=ca361749795b7f3a48a27a7a44cafebf&oe=5BDAFD9C)
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20526224_738284056356117_1923437320341944824_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=c97e9cfe729d930a51c684941b8d4a08&oe=5B9E57E6)
-
It's a bad idea.
Other things being equal, it is probably better to marry someone who has been chaste all along rather than someone who was unchaste and repented. But I am not aware of any Church teaching that says that a person who has been unchaste in the past should never marry. (There have, however, been times when that idea was applied to women as part of worldly culture.)
Chastity is, of course, a wonderful thing. Recognizing that people may have a second chance after repenting does not take away from the great value of chastity.
-
But I am not aware of any Church teaching that says that a person who has been unchaste in the past should never marry. (There have, however, been times when that idea was applied to women as part of worldly culture.)
There is an explicit command in Leviticus 21 about marrying virgins. Granted, it is in the Old Testament and is addressing priests but I found it very interesting. I think it was so explicit because they were prohibiting marriage to widows; (as it was a given that most girls would not be undefiled before Marriage, anyway).
10 The high priest, that one who is chief among his brethren, whose brow has been anointed with the holy oil, and his hands consecrated for the priestly office, who wears the sacred vestments, may never bare his head, or rend his garments,
11 or go near a dead body upon any occasion. Though it be his father or mother, he must not expose himself to defilement,
12 but keep within the Lord’s holy precincts, so as not to bring defilement on them, a man consecrated to his God by the holy oil that anointed him; the Lord’s own priest.
13 And when he marries, he must marry a virgin;
14 not a widow, or a rejected wife, or a harlot, or a woman dishonoured; she must be a virgin of his own clan,[3]
15 so that the stock of his family is not debased by the blood of common folk; I, the Lord, have set him apart.
…
24 All these commands Moses handed on to Aaron, and to his sons, and to the people of Israel.