CathInfo.com

For of those of you who still deny that a prenup would do anything substantial...what if a prenup said that any spouse who separated/divorced for non-church-approved reasons had to leave the children with the marriage-loving, vow-upholding spouse?  Don't you think that would be a deterrant to a spouse having an "itchy trigger finger"?  Don't you think that would be a sobering dose of reality and stop many (if not all) frivolous and impulsive actions, especially by wives?  It would have to have an effect.

Most often both spouses have convinced themselves that they are the "good spouse" who is following the Church and the other is the one at fault.

That is one of points I was making with my long "soap opera" hypothetical scenario the other day.  Both of them were guilty of serious sins.  Both of them excused their own sins while holding the other responsible. 

That's fine to make that point, and it's a good one.  There are very few bad marriages where only one spouse is to blame.

But divorce is so evil, so final and so abominable that no matter what evil spouse A did, it does NOT give spouse B a reason to get a divorce.  (Again, outside of violence/adultery, which are 'church approved' reasons).  Divorce is akin to ѕυιcιdє/murder.  It kills the marriage and there's no going back.  It must be avoided at all costs.  And if a spouse takes such drastic actions, they need to be held accountable in the natural order.  A prenup can help ensure consequences.

Apart from the possibility of scandal, civil divorce is meaningless.  I can see a couple who have separated under conditions permitted by the Church also seeking a civil divorce ... for various pragmatic reasons.  So long as one does not see himself or herself as free to remarry, it is not akin to ѕυιcιdє/murder.  Let's say you have a wife who is in fact severely abused or being cheated on, there's nothing wrong with her separating and then seeking a civil divorce so that she can have the children provided for.  Nothing at all.  She would be merely enforcing her rights against a husband who has violated hers.  All of this prenup talk is assuming a scenario where the woman is primarily to blame vs. where the man is to blame.  Such a man would walk away under the terms of a prenup and not provide for his wife and children as required by God's law.

So if Croix et al. are claiming that a man would be nuts not to have a prenup, one might say the same thing about a wife agreeing to one.  WHAT IF in the future the husband cheats and/or severely abuses her, and she's entitled to separate.  Then under the prenup she and her children would be out of luck in terms of getting the financial support she deserves from the derelict husband.  She would be nuts to sign one.  This provision against possible future scenarios runs BOTH WAYS.