CathInfo.com

You're a complete idiot, as you have demonstrated on other threads.  You get emotionally attached to something and then begin making things up in support of your position.

It is perfectly just and compatible with the laws of God for the state to mandate that a husband support his wife and children.  These arrangements to support wife and children are about the most Catholic things left in this corrupt society.  Without such regulations and laws, lots of scuм deadbeat dads would disappear and stop supporting their wives and children.  There's nothing wrong with the state mandating that you must support your wife and children, dirtbag.  That has nothing to do with Communism, idiot.  Communism is about taking what is yours and distributing it to others.  But when you marry and have children, your income is no longer yours but belongs to the entire family.  You are not entitled to withhold it from them.  Based on your idiotic principle, you should be allowed to practically starve your children and make them walk around in filthy tattered clothing ... because YOU and you alone have the right to determine how you wish to abuse your wife and children.  This has got to be one of the dumbest things you've posted here on CI, and you've set the bar pretty high.

This is nothing but some misogynistic ego trip for you and Croix.

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.

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.