Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Incredulous on June 23, 2018, 07:43:47 PM
-
This poll's intention is to re-set the discussion on two "marriage warning" posts recently made by Croix de Fer.
("Men watch this before you get married" & "Men the system is against you")
They are fascinating and explosive topics, introduced by Youtube commentary from two black protestant ministers.
While there were plenty of insults, thrown both ways, it seems Croix has identified important points on the "Marriage Crisis" today.
It's a worthy topic to be analyzed and debated in a civil manner.
Note: We Catholics are so judaized, we fail to recognize the traps laid to destroy us.
Consider the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and how the state has usurped Church authority with their Organ transplant & Euthanasia industries. Like a Marriage Prenup, going into a hospital requires a Living Will docuмent to prevent the hospital from harvesting our organs or euthanizing us.
Before you vote, please use these definitions:
1. Prenuptial agreement: A signed agreement between a man & woman that is in keeping with the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.
For example: "I, Croix de Fer, vow to honor you as my wife and will never to divorce you"
"I, Miss Trad Lady, vow to submit to you, Croix, my husband and will never divorce you."
The key is to adhere to the Catholic matrimony vows of old and deny the legal traps laid by the masonic state.
2. Marriage License: A docuмent typically issued by a masonic governmental authority allowing two people to get married.
-
Question #1 - Shouldn't you use a different term to refer to the promises given in vows since "prenup" generally refers to a financial agreement?
Question #2 - Elaborate on the difference between #2 & #3. I'm sure if I read all of that other thread, it would be more clear, but I haven't read it all, so I don't see a huge difference.
-
In those terms, prenups are fine, but those are basically marriage vows, ie, the sacrament that you can’t get rid of until death do you part. The problem here is the prenups are divorce agreements. Should this fail, I get x, you get y. So I would refuse both, and accept that regardless, I am a married man, and nothing besides my death or my wife’s can change that. Like back in the “olden days”
Can you validly marry when you already have your divorce planned? No. Marriage is until death do you part. It’s simple. It’s the V2 cult that’s complicated things, with all its bedroom terminology and pornographic “education” and that seems to have seeped into tradition. Sad.
-
Practically speaking I see the good in “being off the grid” when it comes to avoiding a marriage license. However, if one chooses that path, then it also poses legal problems since your spouse is not recognized as your spouse by the state’s legal system. This would affect legal docuмents such as wills, titles to property, insurance, taxes, everything. So, discussions with a lawyer would be absolutely necessary to make sure your spouse could do many things that a marriage license automatically gives you. Food for thought.
-
While it is typical for polls to be framed in a way to produce the desired result, one does not often see such blatant manipulation as the "definitions" provided with this poll.
A prenuptial agreement is usually an agreement on what the couple will do in case of divorce. A marriage license is issued by the state whether or not there is masonic influence on the state.
Incredulous has tried to " reset the discussion" so that everyone will agree with his position.
-
Question #1 - Shouldn't you use a different term to refer to the promises given in vows since "prenup" generally refers to a financial agreement?
Question #2 - Elaborate on the difference between #2 & #3. I'm sure if I read all of that other thread, it would be more clear, but I haven't read it all, so I don't see a huge difference.
Good questions MD:
1. I defined Prenup as "Catholic", meaning divorce is not an option. They stay together in marriage and for example, if one spouse becomes incompetent, they would resort to other legal remedies outside of dissolving the marriage.
2. #2 and #3 are similar, but with #3 implying acceptance of all the laws of state, to be wielded against the marriage and family.
-
Good questions MD:
1. I defined Prenup as "Catholic", meaning divorce is not an option. They stay together in marriage and for example, if one spouse becomes incompetent, they would resort to other legal remedies outside of dissolving the marriage.
2. #2 and #3 are similar, but with #3 implying acceptance of all the laws of state, to be wielded against the marriage and family.
Why not an option for being against both? Because I am.
-
Good questions MD:
1. I defined Prenup as "Catholic", meaning divorce is not an option. They stay together in marriage and for example, if one spouse becomes incompetent, they would resort to other legal remedies outside of dissolving the marriage.
That does not even make sense. That is a normal Catholic marriage without a prenup.
-
While it is typical for polls to be framed in a way to produce the desired result, one does not often see such blatant manipulation as the "definitions" provided with this poll.
A prenuptial agreement is usually an agreement on what the couple will do in case of divorce. A marriage license is issued by the state whether or not there is masonic influence on the state.
Incredulous has tried to " reset the discussion" so that everyone will agree with his position.
Look, "J", why don't you run your poll... and I'll run mine.
And for that matter, I would love to see your voting options. :ready-to-eat:
-
That does not even make sense. That is a normal Catholic marriage without a prenup.
Are you taking the position that Catholics adhere to their marriage vow "till death do us part"?
I disagree.
"Normal" Catholic marriages end up in the divorce courts with significant financial settlements.
-
Look, "J", why don't you run your poll... and I'll run mine.
And for that matter, I would love to see your voting options. :ready-to-eat:
I don't see a reason for a poll on this subject although I did appreciate your call to a less emotionally discussion of it. However, when you use such non-standard definitions, it is likely to cause confusion.
Also I could not tell which option best represented my own position. I would like the system changed so that there are no marriage licenses. The secular understanding of marriage has become too far removed from true Catholic marriage. They are completely different things and should be distinct from each other.
-
Are you taking the position that Catholics adhere to their marriage vow "till death do us part"?
I disagree.
"Normal" Catholic marriages end up in the divorce courts with significant financial settlements.
When I got married my husband and I made vows. We kept them. That is how Catholic marriage is supposed to work.
If people do not follow through on a vow before God to stay together, how would a "prenuptial agreement" to not divorce make a difference?
-
Practically speaking I see the good in “being off the grid” when it comes to avoiding a marriage license. However, if one chooses that path, then it also poses legal problems since your spouse is not recognized as your spouse by the state’s legal system. This would affect legal docuмents such as wills, titles to property, insurance, taxes, everything. So, discussions with a lawyer would be absolutely necessary to make sure your spouse could do many things that a marriage license automatically gives you. Food for thought.
You can give (leave for inheritance) anything to anybody in a legal will, even if the State doesn't recognize the person as a spouse.
It's better to be free from the State, and to nullify any leverage a woman might have over the man when the potential specter of "divorce" is hanging over his head, than to have tax exemptions and other mouse traps full of cheese that are given to people with State marriage licenses.
-
Are you taking the position that Catholics adhere to their marriage vow "till death do us part"?
I disagree.
"Normal" Catholic marriages end up in the divorce courts with significant financial settlements.
That isn’t “normal” Catholic marriage. Normal Catholic marriage is one man, one woman, until death do they part. Anything else is a cop out and an excuse.
-
Right, wills are an easy fix. But what about the situation where you get into a car accident and you're in a coma and your wife isn't allowed to make a decision on some necessary surgery because insurance doesn't recognize her as your spouse, therefore they aren't legally allowed to let her help you or make decisions on your behalf.
Or, you're in jail and she can't come visit you as often as a spouse could, because again, she's not legally your wife.
I'm not saying all this can't be legally fixed, i'm just saying that there are 'unintended consequences' if one avoids a marriage license. So keep that in mind. And if you don't fix these issues, then if tragedy strikes, you could have a lot of headaches.
-
Nothing of this would be necessary if divorce was made illicit again.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent gave this definition of marriage:
It is the conjugal union between a man and a woman, both in legal status, establishing a perpetual and indissoluble communion of lives.
Any single action against this definition should simply be out of the question for Roman Catholics. It is a true shame that Catholics are not acting any better than the heathen on this (or on anything, really).
Divorce should be outlawed. No man nor woman should be able to break their legal and religious vows. Society is broken to pieces because instead of people performing their duty before God and State, they get away with following their spontaneous whims, as if the original sin was not a real thing.
Also, the least thing we need as traditional Catholics is to add more incentive to our youth NOT to marry and form families. Why are we committing ѕυιcιdє? I think we have more than enough of it coming from the wicked world.
-
We all agree on your idealism, but reality says these issues must be discussed.
-
Nothing of this would be necessary if divorce was made illicit again.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent gave this definition of marriage:
Any single action against this definition should simply be out of the question for Roman Catholics. It is a true shame that Catholics are not acting any better than the heathen on this (or on anything, really).
Divorce should be outlawed. No man nor woman should be able to break their legal and religious vows. Society is broken to pieces because instead of people performing their duty before God and State, they get away with following their spontaneous whims, as if the original sin was not a real thing.
Also, the least thing we need as traditional Catholics is to add more incentive to our youth NOT to marry and form families. Why are we committing ѕυιcιdє? I think we have more than enough of it coming from the wicked world.
What Pax Vobis said.
None of what you said practically addresses the epidemic of men getting financially raped, and his kids stolen from him, by women using the courts that heavily favor women. They've virtually codified female privilege into their laws and rulings.
Men must protect themselves. Prenups (and no State marriage license, although, some issues there as Pax Vobis mentioned) are the best protection.
-
We all agree on your idealism, but reality says these issues must be discussed.
I do notice a big discrepancy on the opinions of the married men vs. the single men on these issues.
I wonder why that is.
It is alarming that things are going this sour nowadays.
-
I do notice a big discrepancy on the opinions of the married men vs. the single men on these issues.
I wonder why that is.
Obviously, if one is in a happy marriage, there is no concern about a prenup. So they don't have the same uncertainty that single people do.
Either way, it's a good discussion in theory, based on the practical dangers that exist in the court system today.
-
None of what you said practically addresses the epidemic of men getting financially raped, and his kids stolen from him, by women using the courts that heavily favor women. They've virtually codified female privilege into their laws and rulings.
I understand where you are coming from, but if divorce were to be outright outlawed, I do not see how could this still happen.
Also, women in careers having financial freedom is a big incentive for them to just divorce their husbands, and destroy their families. That is another thing that should change, in my opinion. Women could not get away with this when they depended financially upon their male relatives.
-
I understand where you are coming from, but if divorce were to be outright outlawed, I do not see how could this still happen.
Also, women in careers having financial freedom is a big incentive for them to just divorce their husbands, and destroy their families. That is another thing that should change, in my opinion. Women could not get away with this when they depended financially upon their male relatives.
I agree with everything you said, but none of that is going to happen considering these latter days are getting worse. Iniquity will grow. Men need a prenup to protect themselves in this current reality.
-
I'm not keeping up with all of the 4-5 threads on this topic, so pardon if this has already been mentioned...
I think a legal docuмent pertaining to a marriage (prenup) written up by a priest with no particular couple in mind to be used as wished by any couple would be a NEUTRAL - GOOD idea.
I think a particular couple attempting to draw up such an agreement prior to their own marriage would be a BAD idea.
Basically, a docuмent created by the Church to be used universally, but not required, would aid a couple in committing to the permanence of their marriage, but attempting to draw up such an agreement yourselves just prior to marriage would have a negative effect on the novice relationship.
-
That is a good point. It could cause undue stress on the relationship. But so could any number of topics, if they are emotionally charged.
A lawyer should write it up and a priest should approve it. The docuмent need not be complicated or long.
-
That is a good point. It could cause undue stress on the relationship. But so could any number of topics, if they are emotionally charged.
A lawyer should write it up and a priest should approve it. The docuмent need not be complicated or long.
Anything less than long and complicated would not do the complexities of the many possible situations any justice unless you can simply turn authority of the situation over to an entity of the Church. (But, we all know impossible that would be in today's Church situation.)
-
Obviously, if one is in a happy marriage, there is no concern about a prenup. So they don't have the same uncertainty that single people do.
Either way, it's a good discussion in theory, based on the practical dangers that exist in the court system today.
A "happy" marriage? How do you define that?
-
I'm not keeping up with all of the 4-5 threads on this topic, so pardon if this has already been mentioned...
I think a legal docuмent pertaining to a marriage (prenup) written up by a priest with no particular couple in mind to be used as wished by any couple would be a NEUTRAL - GOOD idea.
I think a particular couple attempting to draw up such an agreement prior to their own marriage would be a BAD idea.
Basically, a docuмent created by the Church to be used universally, but not required, would aid a couple in committing to the permanence of their marriage, but attempting to draw up such an agreement yourselves just prior to marriage would have a negative effect on the novice relationship.
I must be dense. I thought a pre-nup is drawn up in the event of a divorce down the road. Why would a priest draw up a docuмent with this sort of purpose? Why would a priest think that a prenup that he drew up would help make a commitment more permanent if a promise to the Lord wasn't enough?
-
I must be dense. I thought a pre-nup is drawn up in the event of a divorce down the road. Why would a priest draw up a docuмent with this sort of purpose? Why would a priest think that a prenup that he drew up would help make a commitment more permanent if a promise to the Lord wasn't enough?
The point of a prenup is to protect men from financial ruin by gold-digging women, and to prevent his kids from being stolen from him by a malicious, vindictive woman, since the courts effect female privilege regardless of the reason for "divorce". It's not about making a commitment more permanent. That can only happen by the grace of God.
-
The point of a prenup is to protect men from financial ruin by gold-digging women, and to prevent his kids from being stolen from him by a malicious, vindictive woman, since the courts effect female privilege regardless of the reason for "divorce". It's not about making a commitment more permanent. That can only happen by the grace of God.
But it's still "in the event of a divorce", no?
-
But it's still "in the event of a divorce", no?
Not sure what you're asking, but there is no real divorce in the Eyes of God. The State will grant the divorce. The prenup will protect the man from getting his house, equity, bank accounts, assets, etc. stolen from him by the woman divorcing him, if there is no evidence of any fault of his own that lead to the divorce (many women nowadays divorce men because the women don't feel like being married anymore), and the prenup is written to protect him in such manner. Of course, the prenup and outcome of the "divorce" depends on how the prenup is written (and signed) in accordance to the wishes of both parties involved.
-
Not sure what you're asking, but there is no real divorce in the Eyes of God. The State will grant the divorce. The prenup will protect the man from getting his house, equity, bank accounts, assets, etc. stolen from him by the woman divorcing him, if there is no evidence of any fault of his own that lead to the divorce (many women nowadays divorce men because the women don't feel like being married anymore), and the prenup is written to protect him in such manner. Of course, the prenup and outcome of the "divorce" depends on how the prenup is written (and signed) in accordance to the wishes of both parties involved.
Although I understand the need to want to financially protect the man, I see a pre-nup as saying, "I don't really trust you when you promise to God that you will remain married to me "until death to us part"". And if the supposedly Catholic couple doesn't trust one another to remain faithful to God in this matter, then perhaps they shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
-
Several women have made the argument that when couples get married, they should entrust everything to God, therefore the prenup should be avoided, because a prenup shows a lack of trust in each other, so there must not be real love involved. If that is their argument, then why do they demand a State marriage license, if they entrust their marriage to God, and they feel they and their husbands should try to live up to an ideal spousal trust? Why do they feel they need legal validation from the State?
Can you see the contradiction? The women demand trust of each other (husband & wife) only when the women are allowed to have leverage of taking the husband's hard-earned assets, home & money through a "divorce", and in order to allow this leverage to remain, there should be no outside force (prenup) disrupting it. Conversely and in contradiction, they demand an outside force - the State - to be involved in their marriage in a state contract (license) as a 3rd party.
Wake up from your slumber, "men".
-
"Demand" state marriage licenses?
Are state marriage licenses even an option? When I got married, I just took that as routine procedure.
-
Anything less than long and complicated would not do the complexities of the many possible situations any justice unless you can simply turn authority of the situation over to an entity of the Church. (But, we all know impossible that would be in today's Church situation.)
Yes, even if it were possible to create a Catholic version of a prenup, one that did not undermine the permanence of marriage, there is the problem of the complexity of marriage breakdowns. It is rarely a matter of an all-good spouse dealing with an all-bad spouse.
Here is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate what I mean:
After the birth of their first child, the wife (due to sleep deprivation, hormone changes, adjusting to motherhood, etc.) loses interest in sɛҳuąƖ intimacy. She becomes cold toward her husband, reluctant to fulfill the marital debt, and sees him as excessively demanding. In response, the husband gives in to the temptation to use pornography and masturbation. Over time, he becomes addicted and begins to prefer fantasy sex to intimacy with a real woman. This leaves the wife feeling betrayed and hurt. She would be interested in intimacy now, but cannot compete with the porn. While in this state, she is tempted by another man who makes her feel loved and desirable again and she commits adultery. The husband finds out when she becomes pregnant and he beats her. A couple of days later the wife has a miscarriage which she blames on her husband. At this point she thinks of him as violent and murderous. She wants to leave him and get a civil divorce.
Both the husband and wife see the faults of the other and see the other as the cause of the marriage problems. Both see themselves as the injured party, so how are they going to implement a prenup designed to protect the injured party? Who is going to make the decision about who is at fault? They have both committed mortal sins. How could a prenup have envisioned the situation they are facing?
-
"Demand" state marriage licenses?
Are state marriage licenses even an option? When I got married, I just took that as routine procedure.
When I got married, I looked into only having a Church marriage and it wasn't possible. Getting married in the Church was automatically registered with the state.
This was in Canada. I have heard it works differently in different countries.
-
When I got married, I looked into only having a Church marriage and it wasn't possible. Getting married in the Church was automatically registered with the state.
This was in Canada. I have heard it works differently in different countries.
I think that is the way it is here in the US as well.
-
I wouldn't enter a prenup. I recognize that I am obliged before God to provide for my wife and children ... even if my wife were to leave me for no fault of my own. I would give them more than what the divorce settlements typically provide.
-
I wouldn't enter a prenup. I recognize that I am obliged before God to provide for my wife and children ... even if my wife were to leave me for no fault of my own. I would give them more than what the divorce settlements typically provide.
The demand for protection for men seems to come from non-Catholic influences. Your attitude seems to be a better reflection of the Catholic teaching that a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for her.
-
The demand for protection for men seems to come from non-Catholic influences. Your attitude seems to be a better reflection of the Catholic teaching that a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for her.
Honestly, what do I need to get by if I'm on my own? Not a lot. Much of the prenup "thinking" derives from this notion that I can't start up with a new woman and start a new family if I'm still obligated to my previous wife and kids. I hear lots of men who are in new sinful relationships complaining about how they can't go on vacations (and the like) with their new family because of the child support and alimony they owe.
-
Several women have made the argument that when couples get married, they should entrust everything to God, therefore the prenup should be avoided, because a prenup shows a lack of trust in each other, so there must not be real love involved. If that is their argument, then why do they demand a State marriage license, if they entrust their marriage to God, and they feel they and their husbands should try to live up to an ideal spousal trust? Why do they feel they need legal validation from the State?
I think you might be jumping to conclusions when you say women demand a state marriage license. I certainly didn't. Honestly I didn't even think twice about it and neither did my husband. It's just what you do. It's what our priest told us we needed to do and that was end of it.
Maybe I'm just that ignorant, but I don't think the majority of women here even considered the idea of a state marriage license being a weapon in their favor and therefore demanded one. I bet the question didn't even come up between a lot, if not most couples here when they were preparing for marriage.
Bad women aren't under every rock! Just half of them.... lol.
-
I know that protestant pastors and Justice of the Peace require marriage licenses before they will perform the ceremony. Do Catholic priests not require this as well?
-
There's a bigger question, though:
Would most priests marry a couple without a state marriage license?
Several years ago - this was a couple of months before SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, there was some pledge signed by members of various Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy to not sign civil marriage licenses with the understanding (and the correct one, for what it's worth) that marriage has strayed from Christian ideals.
It was a very small number in relation to the number of Christian clergy there are in this country and it was almost four years ago, before the Court ruled. Here is the pledge (https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge).
It has been "signed" by a "pre-1958 usurpation" and a "SSPX", indicating some Traditional Catholic presence, but that was some time ago.
-
Yes, even if it were possible to create a Catholic version of a prenup, one that did not undermine the permanence of marriage, there is the problem of the complexity of marriage breakdowns. It is rarely a matter of an all-good spouse dealing with an all-bad spouse.
Here is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate what I mean:
After the birth of their first child, the wife (due to sleep deprivation, hormone changes, adjusting to motherhood, etc.) loses interest in sɛҳuąƖ intimacy. She becomes cold toward her husband, reluctant to fulfill the marital debt, and sees him as excessively demanding. In response, the husband gives in to the temptation to use pornography and masturbation. Over time, he becomes addicted and begins to prefer fantasy sex to intimacy with a real woman. This leaves the wife feeling betrayed and hurt. She would be interested in intimacy now, but cannot compete with the porn. While in this state, she is tempted by another man who makes her feel loved and desirable again and she commits adultery. The husband finds out when she becomes pregnant and he beats her. A couple of days later the wife has a miscarriage which she blames on her husband. At this point she thinks of him as violent and murderous. She wants to leave him and get a civil divorce.
Both the husband and wife see the faults of the other and see the other as the cause of the marriage problems. Both see themselves as the injured party, so how are they going to implement a prenup designed to protect the injured party? Who is going to make the decision about who is at fault? They have both committed mortal sins. How could a prenup have envisioned the situation they are facing?
This is a good scenario for discussion.
Question: Could a Prenup have helped this couple to avoid their marriage crisis?
Both husband and wife have seriously violated their marriage vows. What are their true Catholic options?
1. They can still be repentant, go to Confession and make amends to God and to each other.
2. Technically, adultery is Catholic grounds for separation, correct?
If they take this option, then they must remain celibate.
3. Annulment? This case doesn't seem to qualify.
A Catholic Prenup would have been a written reminder that divorce is not an option.
In this context, both individuals could have decided to proceed or beak-off with the marriage.
-
Yes, even if it were possible to create a Catholic version of a prenup, one that did not undermine the permanence of marriage, there is the problem of the complexity of marriage breakdowns. It is rarely a matter of an all-good spouse dealing with an all-bad spouse.
Here is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate what I mean:
I think that this is overcomplicated. IMO if the Church determines that the situation justifies separation of the spouses, then civil divorce could follow ... provided that scandal is avoided. And these divorces typically do give the husband SOME money to continue living and working. I don't see that much of a problem with it. And WHOSE FAULT IT WAS has very little relevance to the proceedings. Men are still bound morally to support their children, even if the couple have separated entirely through her fault. So what's wrong with legal proceedings that enforce the obligation of such a one to continue providing? Again, the mentality that the husband has somehow been wronged by forcing to pay child support or alimony comes implicitly from the notion that the wronged husband should be able to start a new family. If anything, the divorce proceedings as they typically play out are MORE CONSISTENT WITH CATHOLIC MORAL THEOLOGY than the idea of having a prenup that would absolve the many of any financial obligations if the separation happens to have been the woman's fault.
-
Can you validly marry when you already have your divorce planned?
I think that you certainly can ... so long as the couple views civil divorce as nothing but a legal arrangement that has no bearing on the actual indissolubility of the marriage before God ... in other words, view divorce as synonymous with separation.
I could even see scenarios where, say, the tax burden would be much higher if the couple were married and so they do a civil divorce ... all the while still living as husband and wife, just like before.
-
Again, the mentality that the husband has somehow been wronged by forcing to pay child support or alimony comes implicitly from the notion that the wronged husband should be able to start a new family.
Disagree. It has to do with an injustice and an undue burden on men, which forces them to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. Some would want to get re-married, some would not. The question is: does the court return just and fair decisions in family court? Absolutely not. The intentions of the injured party, and what they plan on doing AFTER the divorce is irrelevant to the main concern of court injustice.
Both the husband and wife see the faults of the other and see the other as the cause of the marriage problems. Both see themselves as the injured party, so how are they going to implement a prenup designed to protect the injured party? Who is going to make the decision about who is at fault? They have both committed mortal sins. How could a prenup have envisioned the situation they are facing?
Lawyers make a living figuring these things out. Have you ever read a leasing contract? It covers almost every imaginable situation and is not over 20 pages long.
In your scenario, both spouses are at fault for causing turmoil, but still, the spouse who issues divorce proceedings (absent a church allowance) IS AT FAULT. If the wife feels the need to separate for a time (assuming it is ok'ed by the Church) then ok. If she were to go through with civil divorce, she must face the consequences of her abandonment of the marriage. The husband still has a strict duty to support her and his children but THE COURTS WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED. This is the PRIMARY purpose of all of this.
-
In your scenario, both spouses are at fault for causing turmoil, but still, the spouse who issues divorce proceedings (absent a church allowance) IS AT FAULT. If the wife feels the need to separate for a time (assuming it is ok'ed by the Church) then ok. If she were to go through with civil divorce, she must face the consequences of her abandonment of the marriage. The husband still has a strict duty to support her and his children but THE COURTS WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED. This is the PRIMARY purpose of all of this.
I completely disagree with this. If they are married but living apart and she needs assistance from the government, she'll be forced to file for a divorce. This is not denying that she is still married, but acknowledging that she's in need of financial assistance and isn't going to get it from her husband. This does not mean she's abandoned the marriage and does not mean she's certainly at fault.
.
This presumes he isn't covering her expenses, but that isn't a crazy idea as most single-income earners cannot afford to provide for 2 households.
-
I wouldn't enter a prenup. I recognize that I am obliged before God to provide for my wife and children ... even if my wife were to leave me for no fault of my own. I would give them more than what the divorce settlements typically provide.
My own *non-Catholic, non-religious* father had this attitude. Some 25 years after he divorced my mother and children are no longer an issue, he still feels a responsibility to make sure her basic needs are met. Now, he's seldom had to put this to practice as she's quite self-sufficient, but the attitude is still there. He's repaired her porch, painted her house ... these days he just makes sure my brothers take care of whatever she needs which isn't difficult because they have a similar attitude about taking care of their aging parents.
-
If they are married but living apart and she needs assistance from the government, she'll be forced to file for a divorce.
The Church does not, and never has, condoned long-term separation. A separation would be for 2-4 weeks. Long term separation is immoral.
Secondly, you're assuming the man wouldn't support his wife during the separation. Again, if the Church approved of it, he would have to go along. If he didn't, then that's a larger issue which I don't know enough about to answer. I'm sure she can get some friends to help for 2-4 weeks and figure out a housing situation.
she'll be forced to file for a divorce. This is not denying that she is still married, but acknowledging that she's in need of financial assistance and isn't going to get it from her husband. This does not mean she's abandoned the marriage and does not mean she's certainly at fault.
No one is FORCED to file for divorce (see how the liberal mindset has already crept into your psyche?). The only EXTREME case would be to protect your privacy or finances from an abusive/violent or gambling/drug problem. But this is extreme.
All of you women are jumping to conclusions and 'worst case' scenarios, when in fact, most divorces are for petty, frivolous and "emotional" reasons. Stop watching lifetime movies.
-
I recognize that I am obliged before God to provide for my wife and children ... even if my wife were to leave me for no fault of my own. I would give them more than what the divorce settlements typically provide.
The point is that you wouldn't be ABLE to give more than the courts told you too, because you'd be left to live on $400 a month, which is impossible. You wouldn't be able to fix the leaky pipe, paint the house or whatever, because you'd be working a 2nd job just to survive.
-
I think that is the way [state marriage licenses automatically registered when getting married by the Church] it is here in the US as well.
No, it's not. It depends on the state. My own state's marriage license is a separate process from getting married by the Church. You can even get a state marriage license without getting married in any religious ceremony.
-
I do not agree with pre-nuptial agreements. If my husband were to have asked me to sign one before we got married, I would have been insulted! I should think that two people who are considering something as serious as the sacrament of Matrimony should A) have chosen Godly spouses and B) know the person they're getting married to well enough to know how they handle disputes and whether they have the integrity to stick it out when things get hard. Being asked to sign such a docuмent, even one similar to what Croix suggested, is like being told, "I love you. I don't agree in divorce. I should trust you to keep your vow before God. But deep down I really don't. I think you'll cop out sometime. Or try to manipulate me. Would you mind signing this?"
-
The Church does not, and never has, condoned long-term separation. A separation would be for 2-4 weeks. Long term separation is immoral.
I've never heard there was a time limit on separation. I'd be interested to see where this is outlined.
.
Of course, it's difficult to discuss this fictional docuмent, but I'd presume at whatever point one of the parties deviated from Church teaching, their rights as described in the docuмent would be void.
-
I do not agree with pre-nuptial agreements. If my husband were to have asked me to sign one before we got married, I would have been insulted! I should think that two people who are considering something as serious as the sacrament of Matrimony should A) have chosen Godly spouses and B) know the person they're getting married to well enough to know how they handle disputes and whether they have the integrity to stick it out when things get hard. Being asked to sign such a docuмent, even one similar to what Croix suggested, is like being told, "I love you. I don't agree in divorce. I should trust you to keep your vow before God. But deep down I really don't. I think you'll cop out sometime. Or try to manipulate me. Would you mind signing this?"
But what about women who change after marriage, and they're no longer the person whom the man loved entering the marriage? And she proceeds to "divorce" him? How does the man protect himself and all that he's earned & built from the woman using the courts to take it all?
-
Secondly, you want a man to trust you wholeheartedly and trust in God that a divorce would never happen. Yet in the example you give, a divorce is gotten and she moves out after SHE CHEATED, and that's ok. How is that fair? I don't think the Church would allow her to divorce due to a need for $, so if she did go along with it, she is doing an immoral act.
Let's pretend that a woman didn't do anything wrong and she just needs to separate from the man due to his pornography. Ok, but is she allowed to divorce now, because she *needs* (her emotions) to separate from him? And what if he said he's not giving her $ because he feels the separation is rash, because she won't talk about their problems or go to a counselor? Is she allowed to get a divorce? No.
Lost in all this is the woman's obligation to trust God (just like she expects her husband to trust her and not force a prenup) if marriage gets rough. The marriage vows say for better OR WORSE. Well, when things get worse, you can't go running to the courts to get some "financial security". That's not catholic thinking and is immoral. If you have a legitimate reason to separate for a time, then you must trust in God to provide for you during that brief period, because catholic thinking is that a separation is to HELP THE MARRIAGE HEAL, to lay down consequences, to "wake up" the spouse that is lethargic in their duties. If you go and get a divorce, you are furthering the stress that is already threatening to break your marriage. A separation is meant for prayer, reflection (for both parties, because problems are usually never one-sided) and a change in mindset. It is not a time to give up and get a divorce. Getting a divorce in this situation would NOT be a means to compromise and peace - it would be like throwing gas on a fire.
-
All of you women are jumping to conclusions and 'worst case' scenarios, when in fact, most divorces are for petty, frivolous and "emotional" reasons.
This conversation is only concerned about Traditional Catholic divorces. I'm not sure your "most" would apply to that group.
-
I do not agree with pre-nuptial agreements. If my husband were to have asked me to sign one before we got married, I would have been insulted!
Not saying this applies to you, but isn't it reasonable to consider that if a woman rejects a prenup, it's an ominous sign that she will also be disobedient to her husband after marriage? If she doesn't trust the man at the moment he wants a prenup and he wants to get married, why should the man think she will be obedient and follow his lead after they're married?
-
This conversation is only concerned about Traditional Catholic divorces. I'm not sure your "most" would apply to that group.
The example you provided (where I assume you were talking about a trad cath) wherein she got a divorce during a separation for monetary reasons, is frivolous, emotional and petty.
You also assumed that just because a couple was separated that the man would automatically abandon them financially. That's a pretty anti-male attitude, but in our day and age, that's normal. Most women have this type of thinking, even if it's not voluntary. Shows the depths of modernism that we've all been infected with (including me).
-
Several women have made the argument that when couples get married, they should entrust everything to God, therefore the prenup should be avoided, because a prenup shows a lack of trust in each other, so there must not be real love involved. If that is their argument, then why do they demand a State marriage license, if they entrust their marriage to God, and they feel they and their husbands should try to live up to an ideal spousal trust? Why do they feel they need legal validation from the State?
Can you see the contradiction? The women demand trust of each other (husband & wife) only when the women are allowed to have leverage of taking the husband's hard-earned assets, home & money through a "divorce", and in order to allow this leverage to remain, there should be no outside force (prenup) disrupting it. Conversely and in contradiction, they demand an outside force - the State - to be involved in their marriage in a state contract (license) as a 3rd party.
Wake up from your slumber, "men".
I want a woman, who is opposed to prenups and in favor of State marriage licenses, to address this point. Manipulated "men", you can also comment.
-
I've never heard there was a time limit on separation. I'd be interested to see where this is outlined.
.
Of course, it's difficult to discuss this fictional docuмent, but I'd presume at whatever point one of the parties deviated from Church teaching, their rights as described in the docuмent would be void.
I believe Church law allows a permanent separation if one spouse is unfaithful.
No divorce, just live separately.
-
is like being told, "I love you. I don't agree in divorce. I should trust you to keep your vow before God. But deep down I really don't. I think you'll cop out sometime. Or try to manipulate me. Would you mind signing this?"
If the court system were catholic and fair, then I agree. As it is, the system is so skewed that, in essence, women have a court-ordered prenup by law. As soon as a man marries a woman, by law, he's financially screwed if she ever gets a divorce (even if she doesn't remarry).
It's like a gun being pointed at a man by a woman's brother (who's a nut), who threatens that if the wife ever called him he would not hesitate to kill the husband. And the man says, "Hey man, I'm going to marry your sister and I love her, but won't you trust me, calm down, and get out of our life?" And the wife says to the husband, "Oh honey, we love each other and I would never tell him to shoot you, just trust me." And the man is supposed to continue on with the marriage, even though the threat still exists and the brother can be called anytime. Yet if the husband asks the wife to agree to call the cops on the brother and stop his threatening ways, then the husband is guilty of not trusting the wife.
-
I could not support anything designed to anticipate divorce or make it easier.
-
I could not support anything designed to anticipate divorce or make it easier.
Prenups don't anticipate "divorces". They protect the parties involved in the prenup in accordance to their wishes in the docuмent, if a "divorce" occurs.
Prenups don't make "divorces" easier. It's the opposite. They make them more difficult because a woman isn't going to "divorce" her husband when she knows she can't take the house, car, assets, and bank account of the man.
-
Not saying this applies to you, but isn't it reasonable to consider that if a woman rejects a prenup, it's an ominous sign that she will also be disobedient to her husband after marriage? If she doesn't trust the man at the moment he wants a prenup and he wants to get married, why should the man think she will be obedient and follow his lead after they're married?
A whole bunch of women on the forum have all given the same reaction. A prenup gives us the message that the man I am planning to marry does not trust me to keep my marriage vow.
It's insulting and hurtful. That is a major reason why we are all rejecting the idea. I know that many of the women saying this are already married and believe very strongly in the husband's headship and wife's duty to obey him.
These are faithful, obedient wives telling you this. We are not gold diggers who are planning to take the money and run. We are traditional Catholics who take Church teaching seriously. You keep claiming that rejection of a prenup means that a woman must have bad motives or be a bad wife, but it is clear that this is simply not so.
Also, from what I an tell, the men who are agreeing with you about prenups are single and the ones disagreeing are married. The people with experience are against having a prenup and it is supported by those who only imagine what marriage is like. This in itself is a good indicator that prenups are a bad idea.
-
The example you provided (where I assume you were talking about a trad cath) wherein she got a divorce during a separation for monetary reasons, is frivolous, emotional and petty.
You also assumed that just because a couple was separated that the man would automatically abandon them financially. That's a pretty anti-male attitude, but in our day and age, that's normal. Most women have this type of thinking, even if it's not voluntary. Shows the depths of modernism that we've all been infected with (including me).
A) Feeding yourself and your children is not frivolous and petty.
B) I said even if it was his intention to support them, he would likely not be able to keep up with his own expenses plus that of a second household... one or the other including children.
My example presumed a long-term separation. If the "contract" terminates after a 4-week separation is exceeded, the example is irrelevant.
-
A whole bunch of women on the forum have all given the same reaction. A prenup gives us the message that the man I am planning to marry does not trust me to keep my marriage vow.
It's insulting and hurtful.
Not signing a prenup gives the man the message that the woman is disobedient and doesn't trust him. True love requires obedience of woman to man. If she is disobedient to his leadership at that time, why should he trust her to be obedient after they get married?
This mistrust & disobedience is insulting and harmful to the man.
Does female privilege override the man's concerns, and the woman should get what she wants?
That is a major reason why we are all rejecting the idea. I know that many of the women saying this are already married and believe very strongly in the husband's headship and wife's duty to obey him.
[...]
Also, from what I an tell, the men who are agreeing with you about prenups are single and the ones disagreeing are married. The people with experience are against having a prenup and it is supported by those who only imagine what marriage is like. This in itself is a good indicator that prenups are a bad idea.
This isn't an argument because those situations don't apply to everyone else. Each prospective couple is unique. If a man wants to be emasculated and later burnt by his wife by not getting a prenup, that's his prerogative, but don't tell other Catholic couples that it's the "unCatholic thing to do" and it's "unloving of a man to require a prenup".
You keep claiming that rejection of a prenup means that a woman must have bad motives or be a bad wife, but it is clear that this is simply not so.
The statistics prove you wrong. In what bubble do you live? Today, most marriages end in "divorce", including Catholics and those who call themselves "trad".
-
B) I said even if it was his intention to support them, he would likely not be able to keep up with his own expenses plus that of a second household... one or the other including children.
Ok so the man couldn’t afford to support his wife who, in your example, forced a separation, thus forced the man into a situation where he couldn’t support her. THEN, knowing he couldn’t afford to support the separation circuмstances (which she caused) she got the courts involved to make him pay for the separation. Because he couldn’t afford it, he’s now a street person because all his income goes to her.
Why don’t you come up with another hypothetical because you’re trying to justify the current one and the hypothetical wife just looks worse and worse as you try to defend her divorce reasons.
-
This isn't an argument because those situations don't apply to everyone else. Each prospective couple is unique. If a man wants to be emasculated and later burnt by his wife by not getting a prenup, that's his prerogative, but don't tell other Catholic couples that it's the "unCatholic thing to do" and it's "unloving of a man to require a prenup".
The statistics prove you wrong. In what bubble do you live? Today, most marriages end in "divorce", including Catholics and those who call themselves "trad".
You do not hesitate to tell other Catholic couples that when there is no prenup the husband is emasculated and the wife is disobedient. I have just as much right to make generalizations as you do.
If you are going into marriage thinking that the statistics mean you will probably end up divorced, then you should not be getting married. Getting a prenup is not a solution for this.
-
Ok so the man couldn’t afford to support his wife who, in your example, forced a separation, thus forced the man into a situation where he couldn’t support her. THEN, knowing he couldn’t afford to support the separation circuмstances (which she caused) she got the courts involved to make him pay for the separation. Because he couldn’t afford it, he’s now a street person because all his income goes to her.
Why don’t you come up with another hypothetical because you’re trying to justify the current one and the hypothetical wife just looks worse and worse as you try to defend her divorce reasons.
You're adding information. As long as both are willing to reunite after four weeks, there's no problem. Anyone not willing to reunite looses their rites under the agreement.
-
Not signing a prenup gives the man the message that the woman is disobedient and doesn't trust him. True love requires obedience of woman to man.
Not necessarily, and she doesn't take the vow of obedience until marriage. She could interpret the prenup as reflecting some quality or principle in him that she doesn't approve of. Perhaps she's suspicious that he's anticipating dissolution and not committed for life.
-
So, Croix, if a couple were to separate, you believe that the man no longer has any obligation to provide for his wife and children?
-
In your original example, the wife separated from the husband (and you presumed he wouldn’t give her money, which then you changed to say that he couldn’t afford to) but you used this financial hardship as a reason for divorce. If you’ll admit this is a wrong action, I’ll agree and we can move on.
But in your hypothetical, each and every time the wife escalated the situation. 1) she refused the marriage debt. Reaction- husband immorally turned to vice.
2) In response to husband’s vice, she committed adultery.
3) Husband got mad and hit her (I don’t remember). She had a miscarriage, incorrectly blamed him, separated, took the children, and filed for divorce to get money.
Looking at the facts, neither party is blameless but the hypothetical wife started this situation and “upped the ante” every time she was offended. I’m not condoning spousal abuse or sɛҳuąƖ vice but these sins are not as extreme as adultery and divorce.
-
You do not hesitate to tell other Catholic couples that when there is no prenup the husband is emasculated and the wife is disobedient.
Because my points are factual statements. The epidemic of men falling victim to theft by women "divorcing" them can't be denied. These women use the courts to steal what he has built & acquired. A prenup stops it from occurring.
I have just as much right to make generalizations as you do.
No, you don't because you give subjective opinions, while my argument is predicated off of objective reality.
If you are going into marriage thinking that the statistics mean you will probably end up divorced, then you should not be getting married.
Another strawman. No man in his right mind goes into marriage thinking it will likely end up in divorce. That is hopelessness. The point of the prenup is to protect a man from legalized, court-sanctioned theft by the woman divorcing him, if a divorce were to occur, and it's only prudent to enact a prenup in the wake of the high statistical divorce rates. That doesn't mean he thinks his marriage will end in "divorce". It only means he's prepared for the worst. When you get car insurance, do you plan on getting in a car accident? That's the same "logic" you're using. Answer the question, woman.
-
In your original example, the wife separated from the husband (and you presumed he wouldn’t give her money, which then you changed to say that he couldn’t afford to) but you used this financial hardship as a reason for divorce. If you’ll admit this is a wrong action, I’ll agree and we can move on.
But in your hypothetical, each and every time the wife escalated the situation. 1) she refused the marriage debt. Reaction- husband immorally turned to vice.
2) In response to husband’s vice, she committed adultery.
3) Husband got mad and hit her (I don’t remember). She had a miscarriage, incorrectly blamed him, separated, took the children, and filed for divorce to get money.
Looking at the facts, neither party is blameless but the hypothetical wife started this situation and “upped the ante” every time she was offended. I’m not condoning spousal abuse or sɛҳuąƖ vice but these sins are not as extreme as adultery and divorce.
You're mixing examples. The soap opera was Jayne's example.
-
That was the ONLY hypothetical example given. ??
Wait...I may have misread your comment earlier. So you're saying a wife would file for divorce to get GOVT assistance (like food stamps)? I thought you meant, she would file to get the husband to pay (even if he couldn't afford it). ...the former explanation makes more sense, but it's still a rash attitude which would make reunification less likely, imo.
As I see it, if a prenup was in existence and she knew she couldn't file for divorce, then
1) it's extremely unlikely that she would've moved out to begin with, therefore the stress on the marriage from a separation wouldn't exist and they would be forced to discuss their issues/go to counseling like rational adults, instead of "abandoning ship" like an emotional teenager.
2) she would've had to have stayed with family/friends if she decided to separate, instead of receiving govt assistance and being on her own. This would solve many problems, because her family and friends, if they disagreed with her, would talk some sense into her and get her to realize that BOTH of them are to blame for their marriage problems and they need to get a priest/counselor/parent/expert involved to help. The last thing a woman needs in this type of situation is to be on her own, with no input from those that know her defects and temptations, only listening to sympathetic girlfriends who would blame everything on the husband. This would not lead to reunification and the saving of the marriage.
-
In your original example, the wife separated from the husband (and you presumed he wouldn’t give her money, which then you changed to say that he couldn’t afford to) but you used this financial hardship as a reason for divorce. If you’ll admit this is a wrong action, I’ll agree and we can move on.
--clipped alternate example--
Yes, I presumed he wasn't supporting her. If he was, there would be no need for her to file anything. I also didn't say he was shirking his duty, but that he simply couldn't afford to cover everything which is VERY likely in most Trad families.
.
But, again, you killed the example a long time ago by saying they'd be back together after 4 weeks. Anyone not willing to return has left the bounds of the original agreement and forfeited their rights therein.
-
Anyone not willing to return has left the bounds of the original agreement and forfeited their rights therein.
Forfeited what rights? I mean if a woman gets permission from a priest to separate from the husband and agrees that she will revisit the issue with the priest after 4 weeks and the priest says, "ok, things have calmed down now, you need to return home." and the wife says "no", she has just disobeyed the priest, but it's not like she's excommuncated or a divorce is automatic. It just means she said "no". What rights has she forfeited? I don't get your comment.
-
The point of the prenup is to protect a man from legalized, court-sanctioned theft by the woman divorcing him, if a divorce were to occur, and it's only prudent to enact a prenup in the wake of the high statistical divorce rates. That doesn't mean he thinks his marriage will end in "divorce". It only means he's prepared for the worst. When you get car insurance, do you plan on getting in a car accident? That's the same "logic" you're using. Answer the question, woman.
False analogy. Nobody chooses to have a car accident, but one (at least) of the spouses, must choose a divorce. It is not something that happens to them by accident. It is prudent to have car insurance because car accidents are beyond one's control. Divorce is up to the couple. No matter what the divorce rate is, a couple only gets divorced if one of them chooses it.
Making a prenup is preparing for divorce. It shows one believes that at least one of the spouses is capable of choosing divorce.
-
I can't believe all of you have wasted six pages on this punk's drivel.
-
Making a prenup is preparing for divorce. It shows one believes that at least one of the spouses is capable of choosing divorce.
Yes, a prenup says "If you divorce, this is what happens..." It imposes penalties and CONSEQUENCES which are lacking in our anti-catholic, masonic and godless world. In the current situation, women have a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to divorce. I'm not saying they will, or they want to, but if the situation reaches crisis mode, the temptation is there and it will be a strong one, because "the world" will tell them "you need to think of the children and take care of them." Oh the devil will be working overtime on her emotions to get her to sign that divorce paper.
A prenup REMOVES THE TEMPTATION for the wife, so that she would look at the divorce in its TRUE AND HORRIFYING light, which is, divorce is not pretty for either spouse. Divorce will be difficult, it will be filled with financial unknowns and much insecurity and sleepless nights, as it should be. Because those who get a divorce are an abomination in God's eyes and He will not be pleased and his Divine Providence will not be there.
Yes, any spouse is capable of choosing divorce. If you don't believe that, you are living in a fantasy world.
-
False analogy. Nobody chooses to have a car accident, but one (at least) of the spouses, must choose a divorce. It is not something that happens to them by accident.
You're deliberately missing the forest for the trees. What matters is the end, not the means. The end is the "divorce" (car accident), not what led to it (means). A prenup protects the man from having his home, money, and everything else stolen from him by the woman. Car insurance protects a person from getting sued, and it pays for damages to their cars.
It is prudent to have car insurance because car accidents are beyond one's control. Divorce is up to the couple. No matter what the divorce rate is, a couple only gets divorced if one of them chooses it.
Your last sentence supports my argument and nullifies what you said just prior to it. Divorce isn't up to the man when his wife can "divorce" him for any reason, and no reason at all, through no fault of his own. Hence, the divorce is, indeed, beyond his control. Court cases prove it.
Making a prenup is preparing for divorce. It shows one believes that at least one of the spouses is capable of choosing divorce.
Yes, it prepares for a "divorce", if it were to unfortunately come, but it's not expecting it. It's only prudent to prepare for the worst, especially when the trend is growing as time passes. I see you tried to change your language around ("preparing for" replaced "expecting") to make your point valid, but you only supported my point. Thanks.
-
Yes, a prenup says "If you divorce, this is what happens..." It imposes penalties and CONSEQUENCES which are lacking in our anti-catholic, masonic and godless world. In the current situation, women have a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to divorce. I'm not saying they will, or they want to, but if the situation reaches crisis mode, the temptation is there and it will be a strong one, because "the world" will tell them "you need to think of the children and take care of them." Oh the devil will be working overtime on her emotions to get her to sign that divorce paper.
A prenup REMOVES THE TEMPTATION for the wife, so that she would look at the divorce in its TRUE AND HORRIFYING light, which is, divorce is not pretty for either spouse. Divorce will be difficult, it will be filled with financial unknowns and much insecurity and sleepless nights, as it should be. Because those who get a divorce are an abomination in God's eyes and He will not be pleased and his Divine Providence will not be there.
Yes, any spouse is capable of choosing divorce. If you don't believe that, you are living in a fantasy world.
I am living in a marriage of 38 years. We managed to avoid divorce without the supposed help of a prenup because we are committed to keeping the vows we made before God. And that is all anyone needs.
Neither my husband nor I will ever choose divorce.
-
Neither my husband nor I will ever choose divorce.
Great, but you're 1 couple out of a 100,000 trad couples. Do you deny that trads have NEVER divorced? Does 1 couple 'set the rule' for all couples?
-
Forfeited what rights? I mean if a woman gets permission from a priest to separate from the husband and agrees that she will revisit the issue with the priest after 4 weeks and the priest says, "ok, things have calmed down now, you need to return home." and the wife says "no", she has just disobeyed the priest, but it's not like she's excommuncated or a divorce is automatic. It just means she said "no". What rights has she forfeited? I don't get your comment.
Presuming priest-approved separation and priest-approved return:
.
If he wants her to come home and she does not want to return, she can't go to the courts and attempt to get money or custody.
.
If she wants to come home and he does not want her to return, he can't seek custody and has to allow her to receive financial support from him as the courts see fit.
.
(It's usually HIM who moves out temporarily, but I'm sure you can swap around the wording accordingly.)
.
It would be more complicated if the priest doesn't recommend a reunification.
-
Great, but you're 1 couple out of a 100,000 trad couples. Do you deny that trads have NEVER divorced? Does 1 couple 'set the rule' for all couples?
All couples can choose commitment to their vows as my husband and I did. And trads presumably have more graces than most people to assist them in doing this.
-
Great, but you're 1 couple out of a 100,000 trad couples. Do you deny that trads have NEVER divorced? Does 1 couple 'set the rule' for all couples?
No, there are many trad couples who have been married long term without a pre-nup and have not seriously considered divorce, even during rough patches. My husband and I joke that if worse came to worse we'd just paint a white line down the middle and go on about our business because it would be too hard to start over. I don't think the statistic you pulled out of your hat is accurate.
-
Presuming priest-approved separation and priest-approved return:
.
If he wants her to come home and she does not want to return, she can't go to the courts and attempt to get money or custody.
.
If she wants to come home and he does not want her to return, he can't seek custody and has to allow her to receive financial support from him as the courts see fit.
Yeah, if a prenup existed, you could enforce the above. If there is no prenup, then you could not enforce the above because the husband has ZERO LEVERAGE. And really, the priest has low leverage too. The woman can ignore both of them, or not. She can go the courts and get money, or not. She can destroy a marriage, or not. COMPLETELY up to her. This is insanity and is feminism in all its horror on display.
A prenup gives leverage back to the husband, so that the wife cannot control his money (which for an evil woman means she controls him and gets revenge on him), because he is THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY and she does not have the right to destroy the marriage or leave and take the children for non-church approved reasons. A prenup is more about authority, and the lack of authority over the family that the system gives men (which is their God-given RIGHT). Thus, it can be argued that a prenup shifts the authority and control of marital discord back to where it belongs - in the hands of the Church and the husband.
-
All couples can choose commitment to their vows as my husband and I did.
I'm not tempted to x, y or z, therefore anyone can avoid this sin. ?? Dumbest argument i've ever heard.
No, there are many trad couples who have been married long term without a pre-nup and have not seriously considered divorce, even during rough patches.
Many but not all. Most marriages in the trad world stay together, but not all. Prenups are for 'emergency situations.'
-
Jaynek, don't evade my last response. Here it is, again:
(https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/do-you-favor-state-marriage-licenses-prenuptual-agreements/msg615690/#msg615690)
Jaynek says:
False analogy. Nobody chooses to have a car accident, but one (at least) of the spouses, must choose a divorce. It is not something that happens to them by accident.
You're deliberately missing the forest for the trees. What matters is the end, not the means. The end is the "divorce" (car accident), not what led to it (means). A prenup protects the man from having his home, money, and everything else stolen from him by the woman. Car insurance protects a person from getting sued, and it pays for damages to their cars.
Jaynek says:
It is prudent to have car insurance because car accidents are beyond one's control. Divorce is up to the couple. No matter what the divorce rate is, a couple only gets divorced if one of them chooses it.
Your last sentence supports my argument and nullifies what you said just prior to it. Divorce isn't up to the man when his wife can "divorce" him for any reason, and no reason at all, through no fault of his own. Hence, the divorce is, indeed, beyond his control. Court cases prove it.
Jaynek says:
Making a prenup is preparing for divorce. It shows one believes that at least one of the spouses is capable of choosing divorce.
Yes, it prepares for a "divorce", if it were to unfortunately come, but it's not expecting it. It's only prudent to prepare for the worst, especially when the trend is growing as time passes. I see you tried to change your language around ("preparing for" replaced "expecting") to make your point valid, but you only supported my point. Thanks.
-
Also, from what I an tell, the men who are agreeing with you about prenups are single and the ones disagreeing are married. The people with experience are against having a prenup and it is supported by those who only imagine what marriage is like. This in itself is a good indicator that prenups are a bad idea.
Uhhh... just maybe some of us "people with experience" with being married have better things to do than to participate in this conversation... as a matter of fact, I tend to side with the objective concerns of Croix de Fer than those, as a whole, who seem to be in disagreement primarily based on emotion.
Please don't include me, and I'm sure that there are others, in your very limited cross section of participants in this matter.
BTW, I'm happily married, BUT, I'm not blind to the all out attack by the Devil against men and the family.
-
Yeah, if a prenup existed, you could enforce the above. If there is no prenup, then you could not enforce the above because the husband has ZERO LEVERAGE. And really, the priest has low leverage too. The woman can ignore both of them, or not. She can go the courts and get money, or not. She can destroy a marriage, or not. COMPLETELY up to her. This is insanity and is feminism in all its horror on display.
A prenup gives leverage back to the husband, so that the wife cannot control his money (which for an evil woman means she controls him and gets revenge on him), because he is THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY and she does not have the right to destroy the marriage or leave and take the children for non-church approved reasons. A prenup is more about authority, and the lack of authority over the family that the system gives men (which is their God-given RIGHT). Thus, it can be argued that a prenup shifts the authority and control of marital discord back to where it belongs - in the hands of the Church and the husband.
I'm all for putting some control back in the hands of the Church who would instinctively make separation and civil divorce entirely undesirable for both parties. But, I also know that no amount of legal paperwork is going to make a happy marriage. A woman of very low character is going to get what she wants even if she has to take you out of the picture in the process, while a woman of high morals will never resort to having the courts impose vengeance for her. Skip the paperwork and ask God to send you a virtuous spouse. "Ask and you shall receive."
-
Quote from: Jaynek on Today at 07:02:28 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/do-you-favor-state-marriage-licenses-prenuptual-agreements/msg615662/#msg615662)
Also, from what I an tell, the men who are agreeing with you about prenups are single and the ones disagreeing are married. The people with experience are against having a prenup and it is supported by those who only imagine what marriage is like. This in itself is a good indicator that prenups are a bad idea.
Uhhh... just maybe some of us "people with experience" with being married have better things to do than to participate in this conversation... as a matter of fact, I tend to side with the objective concerns of Croix de Fer than those, as a whole, who seem to be in disagreement primarily based on emotion.
Please don't include me, and I'm sure that there are others, in your very limited cross section of participants in this matter.
BTW, I'm happily married, BUT, I'm not blind to the all out attack by the Devil against men and the family.
I'm not altogether against the idea. But, I am against the idea that you should reject anyone who isn't willing to sign a prenup that you've created yourself.
-
When I got married, I looked into only having a Church marriage and it wasn't possible. Getting married in the Church was automatically registered with the state.
This was in Canada. I have heard it works differently in different countries.
In Australia you don't apply for a marriage license. (I've only heard about them in movies).
When you go to the priest and he agrees to perform the marriage, you just go to the Church on the day with two witnesses, then after the ceremony the priest asks you to sign a Marriage Certificate, which is signed by the sopouses and two witnesses.
The priest then sends the relevant papers to the state as a record that the marriage was performed.
So we don't apply for (or demand) a marriage license.
-
edit
-
Nadir said:
In Australia you don't apply for a marriage license. (I've only heard about them in movies).
When you go to the priest and he agrees to perform the marriage, you just go to the Church on the day with two witnesses, then after the ceremony the priest asks you to sign a Marriage Certificate, which is signed by the sopouses and two witnesses.
The priest then sends the relevant papers to the state as a record that the marriage was performed.
So we don't apply for (or demand) a marriage license.
That's not dissimilar to the Communist Soviet era that was fused with the Church to keep tabs on all of the people. It's another example of why Australia isn't a free country. You can't even exercise your inalienable right to carry a firearm and employ self-defense. Your ability to buy most firearms is restricted, too. The few that you can buy, you must get a license to do it. A "license" is nothing more than a piece of paper that steals away your rights, then sells them back to you.
-
When you get car insurance, do you plan on getting in a car accident? That's the same "logic" you're using. Answer the question, woman.
So, basically, you're looking at this prenup as a type of insurance? The man would be "insured" against the woman leaving him? And she should trust his judgment enough that she should be willing to sign such a prenup as an act of love and a sign of her future willingness to obey, correct?
OK, I can get that.
However. All these arguments are presuming the woman is the one to initiate divorce. What protection would be provided for the woman should the man decide that he wants a divorce? What if he grows tired of his sweet, lovable wife. One who is obedient and a good wife and mother. You're saying the woman can change after marriage. Well, would you not agree that a man could change as well? Where's her insurance?
-
So, basically, you're looking at this prenup as a type of insurance? The man would be "insured" against the woman leaving him? And she should trust his judgment enough that she should be willing to sign such a prenup as an act of love and a sign of her future willingness to obey, correct?
OK, I can get that.
However. All these arguments are presuming the woman is the one to initiate divorce. What protection would be provided for the woman should the man decide that he wants a divorce? What if he grows tired of his sweet, lovable wife. One who is obedient and a good wife and mother. You're saying the woman can change after marriage. Well, would you not agree that a man could change as well? Where's her insurance?
Yes, the prenup should include protection of the woman, too. The text should include that a woman gets up to half of what the man built and acquired after the marriage, or whatever they both agree on that's written in the prenup, in the event the man "divorces" his wife for no reason, or he's been proven to commit adultery, abuse or any other situation unbecoming of a husband.
But the man must be very careful and consider strict limitations on what is given to the wife, because the court system is so corrupt & subversive, it would award a woman what's underscored in the prenup simply because the wife videotapes the man sneezing, and the court adjudicates that as "malicious intent to harm the wife",
-
Right, wills are an easy fix. But what about the situation where you get into a car accident and you're in a coma and your wife isn't allowed to make a decision on some necessary surgery because insurance doesn't recognize her as your spouse, therefore they aren't legally allowed to let her help you or make decisions on your behalf.
... I'm not saying all this can't be legally fixed, i'm just saying that there are 'unintended consequences' if one avoids a marriage license. So keep that in mind. And if you don't fix these issues, then if tragedy strikes, you could have a lot of headaches.
Some jobs have benefits for a surviving spouse, which I don't think there would be a "fix" for, leaving the widow without that much-needed benefit/income, possibly forcing her to go get a job to support the children, thus requiring them to go to day-care etc. Things are not as simple as some might seem to think.
-
I'm all for putting some control back in the hands of the Church who would instinctively make separation and civil divorce entirely undesirable for both parties. But, I also know that no amount of legal paperwork is going to make a happy marriage. A woman of very low character is going to get what she wants even if she has to take you out of the picture in the process, while a woman of high morals will never resort to having the courts impose vengeance for her. Skip the paperwork and ask God to send you a virtuous spouse. "Ask and you shall receive."
"Putting control back into the hands of the Church", but the Church isn't functioning... at any level?
As a sad reminder, the SSPX just handed our holy traditional marriages over to the Concilliar Church bishops.
The Catholic Prenup concept is mainly a band-aid approach to our judaized legal system.
The husband or wife may try to seek relief in the civil courts, but the Prenup contract will hopefully provide some protection.
-
... But, I also know that no amount of legal paperwork is going to make a happy marriage. A woman of very low character is going to get what she wants even if she has to take you out of the picture in the process, while a woman of high morals will never resort to having the courts impose vengeance for her. Skip the paperwork and ask God to send you a virtuous spouse. "Ask and you shall receive."
^This. And work on making yourself a virtuous potential spouse too, which would seriously lessen the likelihood of your future virtuous spouse wanting to dump you.
-
^This. And work on making yourself a virtuous potential spouse too, which would preclude your future virtuous spouse wanting to dump you.
Praying together and striving to lead a virtuous Catholic married life are key elements.
But how to protect the marriage against the continual assaults of a world saturated with feminism, materialism and pornography?
And when one spouse falls and runs to the divorce courts, the trad priests who can help you are few and far between.
-
But, I also know that no amount of legal paperwork is going to make a happy marriage.
This is called, in logic, "moving the goalposts", meaning you are changing the goal of the debated action. The purpose of a prenup is not to ensure happiness, because it can't. So your point is irrelevant.
A woman of very low character is going to get what she wants even if she has to take you out of the picture in the process, while a woman of high morals will never resort to having the courts impose vengeance for her.
In our day and age, ANYONE can go from pious to a loss of faith in a matter of a few years. I'm not saying it happens a lot, but there's plenty of people I know who grew up Trad who are now atheists. Women can lose their faith just like men can get addicted to vice or drinking.
Skip the paperwork and ask God to send you a virtuous spouse.
Marriage is one of the most important and difficult endeavors 2 people are EVER going to go through (especially in our day, when there is no help from the Church, when families are spread out, when society is anti-marriage) and your answer is that prayer will solve everything. That's true only to a certain point. We are both physical and spiritual beings, therefore whatever we do requires a physical action, in addition to prayer.
I can pray that God sends me food each day, but I have to work for it. I can pray that God helps me find a new house, but I have to go look at houses to actually see which one is good. I can pray for a happy marriage/pious spouse, but 1) a happy marriage takes CONSTANT effort and for a catholic to stay pious takes CONSTANT effort, both physical and spiritual. Not one or the other, but both.
Your argument is, like most of the arguments on this thread, pure idealism, and skips practical/physical action.
And work on making yourself a virtuous potential spouse too, which would seriously lessen the likelihood of your future virtuous spouse wanting to dump you.
Thank you for being honest and using the word "lessen" which does not mean eliminate. Therefore, you admit the threat of divorce still exists. Therefore, a prenup *could* be of use.
-
It's ironic that JVK put out a "soap opera scenario" where the husband is divorced for non-church approved reasons and none of you women have condemned the hypothetical woman for serious sin. Anytime you criticized "her" actions, it was always qualified, always indirectly justified, always given the benefit of the doubt. And all of you claim to be in happy marriages, with years of experience.
The hypothetic wife should be labeled as a homewrecker, and the husband labeled an immature, sorry excuse for a man. Neither is a good catholic. But separation/divorce is a step that cannot be taken lightly, as did the hypothetical wife. She committed a hypothetically grave sin which mocks her marriage vows and she should be called out for it.
Seems to me that even good, catholic women like y'all are infected with feminism and worldly attitudes about divorce. So even if a man prays for a "pious wife" such a woman is still partially-infected with feminism and the state's fight against holy matrimony. It's unavoidable. Your reactions prove so.
-
It's ironic that JVK put out a "soap opera scenario" where the husband is divorced for non-church approved reasons and none of you women have condemned the hypothetical woman for serious sin. Anytime you criticized "her" actions, it was always qualified, always indirectly justified, always given the benefit of the doubt. And all of you claim to be in happy marriages, with years of experience.
The hypothetic wife should be labeled as a homewrecker, and the husband labeled an immature, sorry excuse for a man. Neither is a good catholic. But separation/divorce is a step that cannot be taken lightly, as did the hypothetical wife. She committed a hypothetically grave sin which mocks her marriage vows and she should be called out for it.
Seems to me that even good, catholic women like y'all are infected with feminism and worldly attitudes about divorce. So even if a man prays for a "pious wife" such a woman is still partially-infected with feminism and the state's fight against holy matrimony. It's unavoidable. Your reactions prove so.
Exactly, many of these women are infected with the Jezebel spirit.
As I said before, their opposition to prenups, and their insistence on a State marriage license, is not based off of Catholic teaching & tradition as they want us to believe, but rather out of a deeply ingrained, indoctrinated, self-serving, feminist ego resisting anything that neutralizes women's position over men.
-
Exactly, many of these women are infected with the Jezebel spirit.
As I said before, their opposition to prenups, and their insistence on a State marriage license, is not based off of Catholic teaching & tradition as they want us to believe, but rather out of a deeply ingrained, indoctrinated, self-serving, feminist ego resisting anything that neutralizes women's position over men.
No, that's taking things too far. We're ALL infected with liberalism and modernism. None of us is a walking saint and those of us living in the world absorb its errors whether we like it or not.
Until you brought up the idea of avoiding a marriage license, i'd never given it 2 seconds of thought. So, by your definition, I was insisting on getting one, therefore i'm a male-feminist (which, sadly, do exist). Also, your claims that any woman who wants one is self-serving, feminist, etc is going way overboard and you're hurting your argument and your integrity by being extreme.
This is a facinating debate, because it combines catholic morals and human psychology - much to learn from it! But it's not about condemning women, or avoiding marriage, or protecting $. It's about exposing the anti-catholic society we live in, about "alternative" measures that one can take to protect themselves and about REALIZING that some of our long-held views are wrong, or at least, not consistent with catholic ideals. And these catholic ideals have not been preached/upheld for 50-60 years! This is because our Faith was stolen from us. But still, we have grace so we can re-learn and recognize such ideals if we have good will. But for some of you, especially women who society is trying to destroy, you must especially be on guard and open to the possibility that you may not recognize the corruption that you have regrettably absorbed.
-
No, that's taking things too far. We're ALL infected with liberalism and modernism. None of us is a walking saint and those of us living in the world absorb its errors whether we like it or not.
Until you brought up the idea of avoiding a marriage license, i'd never given it 2 seconds of thought. So, by your definition, I was insisting on getting one, therefore i'm a male-feminist (which, sadly, do exist). Also, your claims that any woman who wants one is self-serving, feminist, etc is going way overboard and you're hurting your argument and your integrity by being extreme.
This is a facinating debate, because it combines catholic morals and human psychology - much to learn from it! But it's not about condemning women, or avoiding marriage, or protecting $. It's about exposing the anti-catholic society we live in, about "alternative" measures that one can take to protect themselves and about REALIZING that some of our long-held views are wrong, or at least, not consistent with catholic ideals. And these catholic ideals have not been preached/upheld for 50-60 years! This is because our Faith was stolen from us. But still, we have grace so we can re-learn and recognize such ideals if we have good will. But for some of you, especially women who society is trying to destroy, you must especially be on guard and open to the possibility that you may not recognize the corruption that you have regrettably absorbed.
This is a fair post. Thank you.
-
I'm all for putting some control back in the hands of the Church who would instinctively make separation and civil divorce entirely undesirable for both parties.
Exhibit A: I said that a prenup is needed because the husband has no leverage to force a woman to stay in the marriage and the Church has low leverage as well (what can the Church do anymore, practically speaking, except say "well, you've committed a sin").
The response, from a good, pious catholic lady is: "I'm all for putting some control back in the hands of the Church." She did not mention the husband, whom she promised before God to obey IN ALL THINGS. The husband should not have any control, if we "read between the lines" of her response.
I don't mean to say you're a feminist, or a bad catholic, but this is an example of feminist error. Just pointing out hypocrisy and anti-catholic thinking.
-
Further, the 'appeal to chuch authorities' is often used by "catholic" women to subvert a husband's authority. A woman takes a VOW to obey her husband in all things; she does not take a vow to obey her priest in all things, she must only obey him in spiritual things (normally he's not involved, and doesn't want to be involved in your day-to-day life). Most of the time, marital conflicts are over things - where to live, what kind of car to get, etc, etc. When a woman appeals to a priest to sort these things out, the priest has no authority to fix this problem. And a woman is bound by vow to listen to her husband, but since she doesn't want to give him full control, she appeals to the Church to de-leverage him.
Not saying it happens alot, but it does happen.
-
It's ironic that JVK put out a "soap opera scenario" where the husband is divorced for non-church approved reasons and none of you women have condemned the hypothetical woman for serious sin. Anytime you criticized "her" actions, it was always qualified, always indirectly justified, always given the benefit of the doubt. And all of you claim to be in happy marriages, with years of experience.
The hypothetic wife should be labeled as a homewrecker, and the husband labeled an immature, sorry excuse for a man. Neither is a good catholic. But separation/divorce is a step that cannot be taken lightly, as did the hypothetical wife. She committed a hypothetically grave sin which mocks her marriage vows and she should be called out for it.
Seems to me that even good, catholic women like y'all are infected with feminism and worldly attitudes about divorce. So even if a man prays for a "pious wife" such a woman is still partially-infected with feminism and the state's fight against holy matrimony. It's unavoidable. Your reactions prove so.
I agree with you. How can a woman NOT be infected with feminism to some extent when our world is so saturated with it? I struggle against it often.
I wasn't attempting to put out a "soap opera scenario" at all. No, I was merely trying to make a point that it's not always the woman who changes after divorce. Sometimes men do, too.
And yes, if a woman makes a mockery of her vows, yes, she should be called out for it. There is no defense for sin.
Finally, I have no interest in insisting on a state marriage license. But good luck finding a priest to preside over the marriage in the US without one. Unless there's a way around it?
-
The female Jew's scorn is a Hell fury on earth. They hate truth more than the average Jezebel. Look at what the female Jew did to St. John the Baptist. She had him murdered and beheaded.
They subvert men in order to black mail them into doing Satan's work.
-
you're hurting your argument and your integrity by being extreme.
Of course he is. He could have left the extremist positions out of the conversation, but you can tell he's not capable at this point as he can't even curb the name-calling. The problem is that the legal system favors mothers in cases of divorce and, while I don't think the concept is inherently a bad thing (the fairer sex and all), the system is excessive and abused. No one disagrees with the need to have a "fix" so that this abuse cannot happen. If the conversation would stay there and skip all of the broad generalizations about women, we could have reached some conclusions in a few pages rather than a dozen different threads on the same topic.
.
There's a CathInfo member who has first-hand experience with his wife taking their 10+ children, moving in with another man, leaving the Faith, and sending him the bill for raising his kids outside the Faith. It does happen, but "Pastor Dowell" speaks as if it's a certainty and his extremism is nonsense.
-
but "Pastor Dowell" speaks as if it's a certainty
Well, in the non-catholic world, divorce is not a certainty but it's well nigh close to it. So, is Mr Dowell being extreme? Based on his statistics, no. Is Croix incorrectly applying non-catholic divorce rates to the Trad world? Probably. But what is the divorce rate for baby boomers - like 50%? Who's to say that the Millenial generation won't be higher? According to my experience the % of trad millenials who become atheists is pretty high. Also the # of trad millenials who leave tradition and accept the indult/novus ordo is VERY high. So, will they accept "catholic divorce" (which involves the courts) since new rome promotes this? Why not? It stands to reason that the divorce/"annulment" rate among Trads may INCREASE in the newest generation. So maybe Croix's fears are not unfounded, since his potential marriage partners are millenials...
Anyway, the discussion about statistics, and the divorce rate is irrelevant. Even if we could prove that the Trad divorce rate is only 5%, i'd still argue that the court system is rigged and since anyone can fall from grace and be tempted to divorce, then the need for a prenup still exists.
-
Well, in the non-catholic world, divorce is not a certainty but it's well nigh close to it. So, is Mr Dowell being extreme? Based on his statistics, no. Is Croix incorrectly applying non-catholic divorce rates to the Trad world? Probably. But what is the divorce rate for baby boomers - like 50%? Who's to say that the Millenial generation won't be higher?
Anyway, the discussion about statistics, and the divorce rate is irrelevant.
Personally, I expected many more of my worldly acquaintances to have been divorced by now, but it hasn't happened. The rate in my circle is only about 15%, even among the baby boomers. So, no, I don't think divorce is a certainty even among the population at large. Add any form of Christianity, and your chances improve even more. So, posting these extreme videos is not going to aid the discussion, it's only going to rile up those who disagree with HIM even if they agree with YOU.
Even if we could prove that the Trad divorce rate is only 5%, i'd still argue that the court system is rigged and since anyone can fall from grace and be tempted to divorce, then the need for a prenup still exists.
I agree.
-
Divorce like abortion should be regarded as unthinkable and should be forbidden by law.
-
There's a CathInfo member who has first-hand experience with his wife taking their 10+ children, moving in with another man, leaving the Faith, and sending him the bill for raising his kids outside the Faith. It does happen, but "Pastor Dowell" speaks as if it's a certainty and his extremism is nonsense.
No, he doesn't. He speaks the statistical truth that there is a higher probability of "divorce" than a couple honoring and living out their marriage in these latter days. Trad Catholics, who think they're immune to the problem and dismiss taking precautions in the form of a prenup, suffer delusion, and they're guilty of hubris and self-righteousness. In times of deception, people who act prudently and speak the truth are called "extremists".
-
The female Jew's scorn is a Hell fury on earth. They hate truth more than the average Jezebel. Look at what the female Jew did to St. John the Baptist. She had him murdered and beheaded.
They subvert men in order to black mail them into doing Satan's work.
Tis' true!
Miss Salome was so ambitious...
(http://caravaggista.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Bernardino-Luini-Salome-with-the-Head-of-Saint-John-the-Baptist-not-dated-painting-artwork-print-834x1024.jpg)
She plotted for the head of an "Angel".
-
Further, the 'appeal to chuch authorities' is often used by "catholic" women to subvert a husband's authority. A woman takes a VOW to obey her husband in all things; she does not take a vow to obey her priest in all things, she must only obey him in spiritual things (normally he's not involved, and doesn't want to be involved in your day-to-day life). Most of the time, marital conflicts are over things - where to live, what kind of car to get, etc, etc. When a woman appeals to a priest to sort these things out, the priest has no authority to fix this problem. And a woman is bound by vow to listen to her husband, but since she doesn't want to give him full control, she appeals to the Church to de-leverage him.
Not saying it happens alot, but it does happen.
I don't know why nothing but down votes for this post... either PV struck a nerve, or some people aren't paying attention.
I can attest that this type of behavior is more common than I think most people might realize.
-
I don't know why nothing but down votes for this post... either PV struck a nerve, or some people aren't paying attention.
I can attest that this type of behavior is more common than I think most people might realize.
The image conjured of the priest out car shopping with one of his married parishioners just made me laugh. :laugh1: But, alas, no button available for that. I think we need an upgrade. :jumping2:
-
I still don't understand your reasoning about the prenup. If your wife leaves you, even if it were 100% her fault (usually it's not that unilateral), are you not still obliged before God to continue providing for your children? And providing for your wife also indirectly aids your children. So I have no problem with the way the current court system works in making sure that a wife and children are provided for even after a separation. It's actually very well in line with Catholic moral theology. As I've repeatedly said, this idea of it being "unjust" to divide marital assets and make the husband provide for his wife and children comes from this notion that if she leaves due to her own fault that she is no longer entitled to receive support for her children from the husband. That's false. And in such a scenario, why does the husband need to retain all his goods? So he can start a new family? Finally, in the traditional roles, often the wife stays at home to raise the children and therefore does not develop a career that she could fall back on to support herself and her children. Consequently, all the MORE reason that the husband should be legally bound to provide support. This secular thinking regarding prenups is contrary to Catholic thinking in a lot of ways.
Now, the one thing that IS unjust about the divorce laws, is this notion that the wife nearly always retains primary custody of the children. In a Catholic state, if she moved out and shacked up with someone, she should NOT receive custody of the children because of the horrible influence it is for the children to grow up in a household that's sinful in its makeup.
-
... Finally, in the traditional roles, often the wife stays at home to raise the children and therefore does not develop a career that she could fall back on to support herself and her children. Consequently, all the MORE reason that the husband should be legally bound to provide support. This secular thinking regarding prenups is contrary to Catholic thinking in a lot of ways.
This occurred to me as well, so I'm glad you brought it up.
-
Consider:
тαℓмυdic jewery proudly claims that America is their "Paradiso".
So, if our country is Zionist occupied (which it is), it's logical that our divorce laws are skewed to a rabbinic design.
Remember, Our Lord constantly admonished the jews for putting out their wives.
What is our divorce legal system designed to do:
1. Separate families.
2. Financially devastate husbands and empower state socialism.
3. Throw more women into the workforce and their children into daycare.
4. Remove the stigma of divorce (e.g., protestant have come to trade wives like automobiles).
In contrast, Ireland, which historically & culturally rejected divorce, still holds the lowest divorce rate in Europe.
Around 100K divorces since they changed the laws in 1995. Whereas Spain averages 100K/year.
-
I still don't understand your reasoning about the prenup. If your wife leaves you, even if it were 100% her fault (usually it's not that unilateral), are you not still obliged before God to continue providing for your children?
Yes and it is the husband's decision to on how he provides for his family. It's not the court system's decision, or the priest's or anyone elses.
So I have no problem with the way the current court system works in making sure that a wife and children are provided for even after a separation. It's actually very well in line with Catholic moral theology.
It's in direct conflict with God-ordained society and catholic morals. The courts go above and beyond the definition of "provided for" and impose a worldly, materialistic and consumeristic "standard of living" and force the husband to pay for non-essentials, luxuries, etc because "that's how everyone else is living".
Secondly, having the courts be involved (unless in extreme circuмstances) is a usurption of the Husband's rights, duties and authority to rule over, provide and run his household. Part of avoiding the court system is a matter of being both catholic and american, which the court system is neither - and is actually freemasonic, communistic and godless. It's part of being a true american to be ABLE TO BE self-deterministic, autonomous and free. These values are balanced by the catholic morals of duty, church law and the true understanding of liberty, which is the freedom to serve God and His Church.
The court system neither respects the american values which gave rise to our country's good natural values, nor does it support true catholic morals. Their goals are subversive of both: dependence upon the State, over-regulation of the citizen's life, increased involvement in and micro-managing of citizen's affairs, destroying of the family, destroying of children's innocence, destroying of catholic education and morals. Do I need to go on??
As I've repeatedly said, this idea of it being "unjust" to divide marital assets and make the husband provide for his wife and children comes from this notion that if she leaves due to her own fault that she is no longer entitled to receive support for her children from the husband. That's false.
A prenup's purpose is to prevent UNJUST division of marital assets. Croix is the one who postulated that a wife who divorces would get nothing. I don't agree with that, but she certainly would only get what is REQUIRED to live. If the husband decided to give more, to help the children, he could, but it would be HIS decision (as God has ordained and as He wants) and not self-imposed by the courts, with no opportunity to appeal, no opportunity for review and to last the rest of his life.
Don't you realize that by forcing a husband to give most of his $ to his wife, his influence on his children and his leverage to be involved in their lives and to educate them as catholics (assuming the wife were the one to leave for immoral reasons) would be gone. Forever. She could take his money, live independently and he would have a few days a month in which to teach them the faith. Other than that, he is out of their lives and there's no reason for him, from a practical standpoint, to ever be involved again.
And in such a scenario, why does the husband need to retain all his goods? So he can start a new family?
Some non-catholics would say that starting a new family would be a motivation and naturally speaking, I can't blame them. But, obviously, a catholic cannot do so, so for them the below reasons would be foremost in their minds:
1. It's a matter of principle. I cannot condone a wife leaving her husband for immoral reasons and then financially raping him too. His purpose as a husband and father is then destroyed and the children will receive the message that a man, if the courts get involved, has no true authority, but only the State does. This is anti-catholic thinking which the children learn.
1b. As far as damage to the children, one could write an encyclopedia of volumes on the damage a divorce does to them, their future and their outlook on the faith (and life in general). I don't have time to enumerate all the messages the children will absorb, so I trust most of you get the problems.
2. If the husband retains an equitable amount of his assets, then the immoral wife will not have an INCENTIVE to leave. She will see that to leave a family situation, no matter how bad, will be worse, because her 'financial security' as a mom will be severely compromised. This in and of itself, would be a deterrent to divorce. It would be a catalyst for the couple to act like adults to figure out their problems. As it is, a wife can leave a "boring" marriage and be better off financially than being married. This is insanity.
3. This is not all about $. It's more about authority and control. If the woman can leave and get $, then she has independence and therefore she can live the feminist dream of being in charge and financially taken care of. She would also be in a better position to re-marry, if she so chooses.
Finally, in the traditional roles, often the wife stays at home to raise the children and therefore does not develop a career that she could fall back on to support herself and her children. Consequently, all the MORE reason that the husband should be legally bound to provide support. This secular thinking regarding prenups is contrary to Catholic thinking in a lot of ways.
The system is setup so that ANY woman can succeed, with ANY amount of children. Even if her (former) husband was poor, she would get something from him in child support. Then she can get govt assistance, food stamps, certain grants, etc. She could then get a part/full time job and make the necessary $ to live (quite nicely) since her day/child care would be paid for too. I'm not saying it would be a walk in the park, but it's certainly better than any man would have it, if 60-70% of his wages are taken, and he has no home, and maybe even had to sell his car.
Now, the one thing that IS unjust about the divorce laws, is this notion that the wife nearly always retains primary custody of the children. In a Catholic state, if she moved out and shacked up with someone, she should NOT receive custody of the children because of the horrible influence it is for the children to grow up in a household that's sinful in its makeup.
Unless the woman is violent, addicted to drugs or declared insane, a father will NEVER get custody of the children...and even if he did get primary custody due to one of the 'extreme' wife attrubutes, he would so ONLY after a LONG court battle with many laywers involved. You can write-off this idea right now.
-
I still don't understand your reasoning about the prenup. If your wife leaves you, even if it were 100% her fault (usually it's not that unilateral), are you not still obliged before God to continue providing for your children? And providing for your wife also indirectly aids your children. So I have no problem with the way the current court system works in making sure that a wife and children are provided for even after a separation. It's actually very well in line with Catholic moral theology. As I've repeatedly said, this idea of it being "unjust" to divide marital assets and make the husband provide for his wife and children comes from this notion that if she leaves due to her own fault that she is no longer entitled to receive support for her children from the husband. That's false. And in such a scenario, why does the husband need to retain all his goods? So he can start a new family? Finally, in the traditional roles, often the wife stays at home to raise the children and therefore does not develop a career that she could fall back on to support herself and her children. Consequently, all the MORE reason that the husband should be legally bound to provide support. This secular thinking regarding prenups is contrary to Catholic thinking in a lot of ways.
Yes. I am financially dependent on my husband because I have taken a traditional wife's role. While I have never considered divorce, around 20 years ago, my husband faced a life-threatening illness when we had five children aged 15 years to 18 months. I had to think about how I could support us without him and it was pretty bleak. I had no marketable skills, job experience or even a credit rating. I gave up those things to run the home, care for our children, and homeschool. Those were my contributions to the family.
There have been some men talking about how a wife takes away man's money after a divorce. My husband never says it is his money. He says it is the family's money. He is the only one earning money and that is one of his ways of contributing to the needs of the family. I am able to contribute far more time to the children and house than he can because I don't have to earn money. He has time to make money because I am looking after the children and house. It is a team in which we both work, dividing our labour, for the common good of the family.
The children need both their parents. One person can't look after the children at the same as earning money to provide their material needs. A man has a duty to provide for his children and it is not stealing to force him to do this if he will not do so willingly.
-
Yes and it is the husband's decision to on how he provides for his family. It's not the court system's decision, or the priest's or anyone elses.
It's in direct conflict with God-ordained society and catholic morals. The courts go above and beyond the definition of "provided for" and impose a worldly, materialistic and consumeristic "standard of living" and force the husband to pay for non-essentials, luxuries, etc because "that's how everyone else is living".
Well, all the Catholic moral theology manuals state that it's the duty of the husband to provide for the wife and children according to their social status. What you consider "luxury" might be considered appropriate for her status. When couples divorce, there's usually some bitterness, and I can see the husband "punishing" the wife by only giving her the bare-bones necessities out of spite ... even IF it's partly or even entirely his fault. When couples divorce, the fault is usually on both sides, and yet each of the couple tries to lay 100% of the blame on the other. I see this all the time. So I don't think it improper that there be some legal protections in place to ensure that the wife and children get what they're normally entitled to. I could see the husband deciding only to pay rent for a slum in a bad neighborhood and only enough money for food that they can barely survive ... based on your principle.
-
There have been some men talking about how a wife takes away man's money after a divorce. My husband never says it is his money. He says it is the family's money. He is the only one earning money and that is one of his ways of contributing to the needs of the family.
I have the same attitude. My wife works more than I do and if I were gone, she would have no way to support herself and our six children because she gave up any career in order to raise them. So it's our money. Now Croix would undoubtedly call me and your husband betas for this reason.
-
2. If the husband retains an equitable amount of his assets, then the immoral wife will not have an INCENTIVE to leave. She will see that to leave a family situation, no matter how bad, will be worse, because her 'financial security' as a mom will be severely compromised. This in and of itself, would be a deterrent to divorce. It would be a catalyst for the couple to act like adults to figure out their problems. As it is, a wife can leave a "boring" marriage and be better off financially than being married. This is insanity.
Usually, even with the current laws, the wife and children take a step back financially after a divorce ... unless she shacks up with another guy and gets some of his income on top of what she's collecting in alimony and child support. It's your fault if you marry a woman who will leave a marriage because it's "boring".
-
3. This is not all about $. It's more about authority and control. If the woman can leave and get $, then she has independence and therefore she can live the feminist dream of being in charge and financially taken care of. She would also be in a better position to re-marry, if she so chooses.
Again, it's your fault if you marry someone like that. I know it's about control for you ... but it should be about charity and justice instead. Control is typically a very self-serving notion.
-
1b. As far as damage to the children, one could write an encyclopedia of volumes on the damage a divorce does to them, their future and their outlook on the faith (and life in general). I don't have time to enumerate all the messages the children will absorb, so I trust most of you get the problems.
NOBODY is disputing this.
-
In contrast, Ireland, which historically & culturally rejected divorce, still holds the lowest divorce rate in Europe.
Around 100K divorces since they changed the laws in 1995. Whereas Spain averages 100K/year.
That's a pretty useless comparison, given that Spain's population is ten times that of Ireland (46.7 million vs 4.7 million). A comparison of the actual rate of divorce would be useful, raw numbers are not.
-
I have the same attitude. My wife works more than I do and if I were gone, she would have no way to support herself and our six children because she gave up any career in order to raise them. So it's our money. Now Croix would undoubtedly call me and your husband betas for this reason.
Anyone who calls a man like that a "beta" is using secular rather than Catholic standards.
-
I think that the big mistake in your reasoning comes from the overemphasis on control ... while forgetting charity and justice. Our Lord had every authority and every right to control, but He made Himself a servant.
-
You guys keep talking about "protections" for the wife when the entire legal system is setup to protect her, give her free $ and have her be a single mother. If they could have every woman be a single mother, then they would have succeeded in their goals.
The entire hypothetical cases we've been talking about are women who have LEFT husband, violated thier VOWS by getting a divorce, and immorally DESTROYING a family and their children's lives...and yet, it is ASSUMED that the husband will leave the wife/children destitute because, well, he's a bad father and deep down, when a woman leaves a marriage it's not her fault but his.
I see that the feminist, anti-catholic view of a husband has infected more than just women. So sad. And utterly shocking.
-
You guys keep talking about "protections" for the wife when the entire legal system is setup to protect her, give her free $ ...
That's precisely the point, that the legal protections in place are not out of line. As for "free" money, if she's taking care of the children, she's laboring and the money is not "free".
-
It's your fault if you marry a woman who will leave a marriage because it's "boring".
Another man-blaming attitude. The wife leaves a marriage and it's still the man's fault. Wow.
I think that the big mistake in your reasoning comes from the overemphasis on control ... while forgetting charity and justice.
The man cannot be charitable if the state takes his money. The fact that the state is involved is unjust and actually prevents his charity to an undeserving and immoral wife.
Usually, even with the current laws, the wife and children take a step back financially after a divorce
So the wife "takes a step back" until she can get a job, while the husband is financially destroyed, for life. Where is the justice and charity for the husband?
-
You guys keep talking about "protections" for the wife when the entire legal system is setup to protect her, give her free $ and have her be a single mother. If they could have every woman be a single mother, then they would have succeeded in their goals.
The entire hypothetical cases we've been talking about are women who have LEFT husband, violated thier VOWS by getting a divorce, and immorally DESTROYING a family and their children's lives...and yet, it is ASSUMED that the husband will leave the wife/children destitute because, well, he's a bad father and deep down, when a woman leaves a marriage it's not her fault but his.
I see that the feminist, anti-catholic view of a husband has infected more than just women. So sad. And utterly shocking.
Everybody, men and women, is a sinner. We can't assume that any person of either sex will do the right thing.
The reason you want to have prenups is because you won't assume that a woman will keep her marriage vow. But you are fine with assuming that a man will be just in providing support for his family in the event of divorce.
If we are going to decide things based on worst case scenarios, then we ought to include scenarios in which men behave badly, not just ones in which women do.
-
That's precisely the point, that the legal protections in place are not out of line.
You call them "protections" when they are freemasonic, satanic INCENTIVES to leave a marriage that gets temporarily difficult.
Secondly, you insert divorce scenarios where you are blaming the husband-wife, both. "It's usually equal blame", they say. No it's not. If the wife takes the NUCLEAR option to separate/divorce, she is the GUILTY PARTY. She has destroyed the marriage. She has violated her vows. This is the situation we're talking about. If she does not have a church approved reason to do so, the blame is fully on her for taking such a drastic, selfish action.
You minimize the gravity of immorality which a divorce inflicts upon society and on the marriage. A bad marriage is much better and has a shot to succeed. A divorce is final, and the woman will be guilty before God for this. As such, civil laws should also reflect the gravity of this sin, which they do not, therefore a prenup should exist to de-incentivize a sin which is so commonplace today that it's heinousness is forgotten.
-
The reason you want to have prenups is because you won't assume that a woman will keep her marriage vow. But you are fine with assuming that a man will be just in providing support for his family in the event of divorce.
Based on today's society, no one can assume anything about anyone. Marriage vows are compromised because, even in a hypothetical situation, many of you STILL MAKE EXCUSES FOR A HYPOTHETICALLY BAD WIFE.
A prenup would cover the support that a man must provide, likely 50-50. What we're trying to avoid is the court systems where the courts take 70-80% of the man's earnings. Oh, and stole the children too.
-
Can anyone give me a scenario where it would be wrong for a woman to get a divorce, take the children, get govt assistance, and 70% of a man's earnings for life? Is she only wrong if she tries to kill her husband/child? (She probably get off due to temporary insanity).
Seems to me that in EVERY situation, the husband is to blame and the woman gets rewarded for a divorce. Sickening.
-
That's a pretty useless comparison, given that Spain's population is ten times that of Ireland (46.7 million vs 4.7 million). A comparison of the actual rate of divorce would be useful, raw numbers are not.
Okay, two historically Catholic countries:
1. Ireland with 4.8 million souls and well less than 5,000 divorces per year.
2. Spain with 47 million souls with 100K divorces per year.
Spain has 8.6 times the population but 23 times more divorces?
I submit the comparison of differing divorces ratios remains valid.
One country tried to keep it's Catholic culture and resist divorce while the other country didn't :chef:
-
Great stats, Incredulous. Certainly Ireland has received greater blessings from God because their Constitution (until recently) upheld the sanctity of life and (still does) disallows divorce. This goes to show the importance of civil laws in helping catholics to keep the Faith. I'll bet Spain used to have such laws but they were gotten rid of once the great Franco died and left them defenseless against Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and communism.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
These situations are 'church approved' reasons to separate and would be spelled out in the prenup as allowable terms for separation and there would be no penalties for a spouse doing so. I've admitted this multiple times already.
-
These situations are 'church approved' reasons to separate and would be spelled out in the prenup as allowable terms for separation and there would be no penalties for a spouse doing so. I've admitted this multiple times already.
Then there are the blurry scenarios where each think that the other is in the wrong ... which is the case in 99% of all divorces. On top of that, all a bad-willed wife would have to do is to CLAIM abuse, and a judge would throw the thing out. It's worthless. If you can't trust your prospective wife not to divorce you for unjust reasons, then you can't trust her not to lie or exaggerate to invoke the abuse clause in the prenup.
-
All of you act like I or Croix invented the idea of prenups. You act like they haven’t been used in the court system for decades. You act like there aren’t lawyers who deal with these situations on a daily basis and know how to frame a docuмent to cover scenarios of this nature. The argument that “it won’t work/solve anything” is retarded.
-
All of you act like I or Croix invented the idea of prenups. You act like they haven’t been used in the court system for decades. You act like there aren’t lawyers who deal with these situations on a daily basis and know how to frame a docuмent to cover scenarios of this nature. The argument that “it won’t work/solve anything” is retarded.
They have not been used by traditional Catholics. They have been used be people who don't care about protecting the permanence of marriage or making sure the prenup is compatible with Church teaching.
-
All of you act like I or Croix invented the idea of prenups. You act like they haven’t been used in the court system for decades. You act like there aren’t lawyers who deal with these situations on a daily basis and know how to frame a docuмent to cover scenarios of this nature. The argument that “it won’t work/solve anything” is retarded.
Secular prenups that "hold" don't involve various Catholic clauses. If there's a clause, as you said, to void the terms of the prenup if a husband abuses his wife, then the wife need merely claim abuse to void the prenup. That's just fact and not retarded.
-
They have not been used by traditional Catholics. They have been used be people who don't care about protecting the permanence of marriage or making sure the prenup is compatible with Church teaching.
What’s so “special” about a Trad divorce? If a prenup is ever needed (God forbid), then permanence of marriage and Church teaching has already been TRASHED by one of the spouses who is requesting a divorce. It’s not the lawyer’s fault that the marriage broke up and there’s nothing he can do to fix it. All he’s there to do is make sure the divorce is fair to both parties, per the agreement.
A prenup is a tool, just like a weapon. If you’re trying to blame the prenup for a divorce then you should blame the gun for the murder. But we all know that logic doesn’t work.
-
If there's a clause, as you said, to void the terms of the prenup if a husband abuses his wife, then the wife need merely claim abuse to void the prenup.
These are just childish arguments. A claim of abuse is not the same thing as abuse. A claim of violence is not the same thing as a beating. In a court of law, evidence is king. Nothing will happen without evidence.
Maybe the husband is thrown into jail for alleged domestic violence. Maybe his children are taken away for a short time. This is NOT the final say; this is not the end of the case. This is all short term crap that a husband would have to go through when dealing with a dishonest wife and is FURTHER evidence that the court system is against him and why a prenup is necessary. But once lawyers get involved and the husband has the chance to defend himself (which he cannot do when cops are called on him at 1am), the the truth will come out and a lack of evidence, per the prenup, will give him a fighting chance.
I don’t really like to think about all these “worse case” scenarios, and to think about evil spouses, but y’all are surprisingly pessimistic and naive to think that a legal docuмent, signed by both spouses, wouldn’t make a difference in court. OF COURSE IT WOULD! Courts take signed docuмents VERY seriously!
-
Then you keep providing examples (both real life and imagined) on how the wife can screw the husband legally and you argue that he doesn’t need legal defenses? You’re making my case for me! Of COURSE he needs legal help because the system is bent towards women!
-
These are just childish arguments. A claim of abuse is not the same thing as abuse.
In divorce court it most certainly is. I've seen that exact scenario played out ... even when the husband was acquitted in the criminal case. I have a relative who had the charge reduce to a minor disorderly conduct and then had the divorce judge use the alleged abuse against him in the divorce proceedings. You're just blowing smoke without any first-hand knowledge of how these things go down. Men are convicted of rape all the time based simply on the alleged victim's word.
-
I don’t really like to think about all these “worse case” scenarios, and to think about evil spouses, but y’all are surprisingly pessimistic and naive to think that a legal docuмent, signed by both spouses, wouldn’t make a difference in court. OF COURSE IT WOULD! Courts take signed docuмents VERY seriously!
Yeah, and in the hypothetical "signed docuмent", you talk about there being a clause to void the terms in the event that the husband abuses the wife. Then it just boils down to whether the judge believes the woman. She just sheds a few tears, plays it up, and the judge accepts that as abuse. You do know that in civil proceedings the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal ones, right? And divorce court is not heard by a jury. It depends on the sensibilities of the judge. Woman just starts bawling in court and 99% of divorce judges will side with her and say that the abuse voids the contract. You're totally wrong about this.
-
even when the husband was acquitted in the criminal case.
If its not criminal abuse then the prenup penalties stand. Abuse would not VOID the prenup, it would just trigger the different clauses in the docuмent.
If two parties sign a lease and they go to court over a disagreement, the judge does not void the contract, he makes a decision based on the terms of the lease. Have you ever watched “people’s court”? The judge has to honor what was signed, unless criminal law trumps it.
If there’s no criminal laws broken then it’s a civil case and a prenup agreement would bind the judge to consider its terms. Now he could rule in favor of an immoral wife, or in favor of the husband or some combo thereof. More than likely, he would urge a settlement and would delay, delay, delay in hopes the lawyers reached a settlement.
The over-arching point of the ENTIRE discussion is that a prenup gives a husband a fighting chance at justice. It’s not a guarantee, not a slam dunk win, not an iron-clad argument, but it’s damn sure better than going to divorce court with nothing but hope in an unjust, woman-loving world. You can punch holes all day in the idea but it’s better than the alternative.
The woman doesn’t need a prenup and signing one doesn’t even hurt her because at worst, she’ll get nothing from the husband and a bunch of $ from the govt. At best, she'll get most of her former husband’s $ + govt assistance too.
-
And if you combine a prenup with no marriage license then all the craziness you talk about in divorce court can’t happen because there’s nothing to divorce, in the state’s eyes. This is probably why that preacher recommended no license vs prenup because a lack of a license gives the courts ZERO authority over you, divorce wise. They can’t impose alimony.
While a prenup can be argued and hurt by settlements. The wife’s gonna get the children either way, if she wants that, so that consideration is a wash. Child support is still a forced option (I think, I’m not sure) but a prenup could minimize that.
The main point is, in an anti-catholic world, if all a man has is a vow from a woman, which means nothing to the state, then, naturally speaking, he’s screwed without a backup plan. Your real-life examples prove so.
-
And if you combine a prenup with no marriage license then all the craziness you talk about in divorce court can’t happen because there’s nothing to divorce, in the state’s eyes.
:laugh1:
If you get married before a priest, even without a civil license, that'll be declared common law marriage. You really don't know what you're talking about but are making things up and blowing smoke as usual.
-
If its not criminal abuse then the prenup penalties stand.
Only if it's worded exactly that way. "If the husband is convicted of abuse in a criminal court ..." But then it's unjust towards the wife and immoral because if she separates due to actual abuse, whether or not there's a criminal conviction, she's perfectly entitled to receive support from the husband. So you're run back around in the circle to where we started.
-
Child support is still a forced option (I think, I’m not sure) but a prenup could minimize that.
The main point is, in an anti-catholic world ...
Your first statement is exactly a sentiment of the anti-Catholic world. Why should any Catholic desire that child support should be minimized? It should in fact be maximized. Children should not be punished and deprived for the sins of their parents.
-
The over-arching point of the ENTIRE discussion is that a prenup gives a husband a fighting chance at justice.
It is most certainly not justice for the husband to withhold support for his wife and children. As head of the family, he's ultimately responsible for its breakup and is to be held accountable. You see, that authority and "headship" argument cuts both ways, unless you're a hypocrite and like to have your cake and eat it too.
-
If you get married before a priest, even without a civil license, that'll be declared common law marriage.
A lot of states don’t have common law marriage. This has already been discussed.
-
Why should any Catholic desire that child support should be minimized? It should in fact be maximized. Children should not be punished and deprived for the sins of their parents.
The point is I don’t want to be told by the State how to support my family and raise my kids. None of their business. If you disagree then you’re advocating communism.
As I’ve pointed out before, it’s the husbands job to support his family but HE HAS THE FINAL SAY on how that is accomplished, which the Church agrees with and is part of the natural law. It is IMMORAL, subversive and anti-catholic for the state to be involved in micro-managing families and it is unjust theft for a husband to be forced to pay an arbitrary sum of $ for the rest of his life. That’s the definition of slavery to the state.
You seem to think that the wife can divorce her husband, steal his children, and get paid for it and that’s ok. “Well, he should leave it in God’s hands”, or “He should sacrifice for his family.”
On the flip side, in a catholic country, the husband supports his family how he says, and if the wife is left to live a financially “lean” life, ESPECIALLY AFTER DIVORCING HIM AND TAKING HIS CHILDREN, “Well, she made her bed so she should lie in it”. Or, “You reap what you sow”.
All of this presumes the husband won’t support his family, which is a sinful rash judgment. All I’m asking for is EQUALITY and FAIR treatment, which you won’t get in the courts today...thus a prenup.
I’d you think a man is obligated to bend over repeatedly and take abuse from all sides in a divorce proceeding then you’re a feminist. And you’re contributing to the Monarchical society in which we live. No wonder people complain that “Men don’t act like men” or similar...if they try to assert some legal rights or ask for equality and fairness they are chastised and ridiculed. Such anti-catholic thinking.
-
An inconvenient truth about all married men, who don't have a prenup, is they're slaves to their wives and the State. Their slavery is compounded, if they have a State marriage license. You might not feel the effects of that slavery right now, nor have you experienced it since you've been married, but you're still a slave. The specter of the leverage that wives have over you because you have no prenup, and you blindly included the State in your marriage as an overseeing 3rd party, constantly looms over you.
Your wife can bring just about any false accusation against you and ruin you. The hell you would have to endure would begin immediately. And it's easy to falsify evidence of "battery" and "abuse".
-
It is most certainly not justice for the husband to withhold support for his wife and children.
Im not advocating withholding ALL support! You’re projecting your negative opinions of men and assuming they want to screw their families. In the scenario we’re talking about THE HUSBAND IS THE ONE WHO IS TRYING TO SAVE THE MARRIAGE, but you’re flipping the blame from the woman who initiated the divorce to the man, for not paying her to continue to live sinfully.
In the case of a husband who abuses his wife, he would have to pay her. I’m not saying she’s screwed. Why is this so hard to understand? You give all these examples of women who screwed their husbands and when I say “hey, that’s not fair”, your response is basically “it’s your job to support them no matter what.”
Ok, but the husband gets to decide what “support” looks like. Just like he was free to support his wife as he saw fit before divorce, so he has the same right to do so afterwards. The wife trusted him before and she has to afterwards. The marriage is still valid, divorce or no divorce. The husbands rights and duties don’t change. And the State shouldn’t be involved. This is he purpose of a prenup - fairness and freedom.
If a wife can’t trust a man to provide for her then she shouldn’t have gotten married to him.
-
A lot of states don’t have common law marriage. This has already been discussed.
And some don't have alimony either. Just move to where the laws suit your plans and you're good to go! This state has no alimony. You split anything you've accuмulated during your marriage 50/50 and you pay child support. Once your children are 18, there's no further legal obligation to support your wife or children.
.
When I think of the value of a prenup, it has much more to do with the Catholic parent retaining custody than with any sort of monetary considerations.
-
A lot of states don’t have common law marriage. This has already been discussed.
This is more than just common law marriage. Even without a state license, if you go in front of a priest and have a marriage ceremony, the court would still most likely construe that as a marriage.
-
The point is I don’t want to be told by the State how to support my family and raise my kids. None of their business. If you disagree then you’re advocating communism.
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.
-
When I think of the value of a prenup, it has much more to do with the Catholic parent retaining custody than with any sort of monetary considerations.
Now that would be a wise prenup, except that it would never hold up. If you wanted to write a prenup that said something along the lines of, "If one of the couple ever stopped professing and practicing the Catholic faith, the one who remained Catholic would retain full custody of the children." Problem is that the court will throw that kind of thing out if the judge decides it would be better for the CHILDREN that they remain with the other spouse. They'll say that the contract can't bind the children.
-
Your wife can bring just about any false accusation against you and ruin you. The hell you would have to endure would begin immediately. And it's easy to falsify evidence of "battery" and "abuse".
Of course she can, and she could use this to have the prenup thrown out or seek other damages in a civil case. There's no piece of paper that could protect you from this kind of thing.
-
Of course she can, and she could use this to have the prenup thrown out or seek other damages in a civil case. There's no piece of paper that could protect you from this kind of thing.
Not necessarily, and it would be even more difficult if there was no state marriage license and common law "marriages" didn't apply in the state.
-
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.
It isn't fair to put Pax in the same category as Croix. Pax has been engaging is reasoned debate and refraining from personal attacks. He even called Croix out for going too far.
It isn't right to be calling Pax names like that.
-
Ladidlaus is a very intelligent guy and I enjoy his debates but his fuse is too short and once he gets tired of a discussion, he gets frustrated. Then he calls people names, puts words in their mouth and takes comments out of context to make them look stupid. Par for the course.
All of you can argue that a prenup would be pointless but you’d be ignoring reality and the fact that a good lawyer, who has experience in family court, can do a LOT to minimize the damage of false accusations and protect you from theft.
(Sarcasm alert) But then, if a man tried to protect himself, that means its ONLY because he wants to be selfish and have his (former) family be destitute and keep all his money. There’s no reason to avoid courts because they care about the wife (who left him) more than he does. All he cares about is money because he’s a dirtbag who wont bend over and take the feminist punishment that the almighty courts deem is merciful. (Sarcasm done)
Good golly, y’all. We live in a police state and have a corrupt legal system and you are oblivious to these dangers.
-
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.
:applause:
Very well said.
-
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.
Again, you assume the man is a dirtbag and would leave his family destitute, even though the 2 real-life examples YOU provided show the wife to be at fault. More feminism from you.
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.
A prenup is for the benefit of BOTH spouses. This has already been covered, but again, you project your feminism onto every husband and assume he's at fault.
-
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.
.
It seems to me that pax and cdf forget that while the husband is off making the money the wife is working hard in the home. There is no reason a wife should not get 50% of what is jointly theirs, that she worked hard for, no matter the reason for the civil divorce (annulment is another matter). Further, the children are his and he has a moral obligation to support them. The courts only require support until age 18, yet many children need support far beyond that.
.
The reasons for the civil divorce are on the souls of the parties involved and God will sort it all out.
-
There is no reason a wife should not get 50% of what is jointly theirs,
That would be a fair judgment. The problem we're trying to avoid is the civil divorce process, whereby woman are NORMALLY awarded MUCH MORE THAN 50%. Any judgement in favor of the woman where she get's more than 50% is unjust and a prenup would help (but not guarantee) fairness. That's all i'm asking for.
Further, the children are his and he has a moral obligation to support them.
If the wife receives 50% then that is part of his support. She doesn't get 50% + child support. That's unfair and what a prenup is supposed to avoid.
If he wishes to help out his children more in the future (which I'm sure he would want to, regardless of most of your rash judgements to the contrary) he has the freedom to do so AS HE PLEASES, WHEN HE PLEASES, and in the manner HE CHOOSES. It's none of the damn court's/state's business.
And he can buy things DIRECTLY for his children, not be forced to give $ to his wife, who can then spend it on anything she wants. (Do the courts monitor child support payments and make sure the wife uses the $ ONLY for the children? Of course not, that would be anti-woman because we MUST trust her to do the right thing ALWAYS, especially when it comes to the children because she's a "loving" person and above reproach....even though she left her husband for frivolous reasons and has inflicted untold psychological damage on the children due to her selfishness...)
-
I'd also like to point out the similarities in philosophy between a prenup and the TRADITIONAL nuptial blessing. (If you want to read the true blessing vs new-rome's modernist/feminist verion, you can here: https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/feminism-and-the-nuptial-blessing/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/feminism-and-the-nuptial-blessing/))
The point is, when the idea of a prenup was brought up with the purpose of protecting men from theft, to ensure a fair divorce and (in some cases) to prevent divorce altogether, the responses were similar to the following:
"Oh, you need to just trust your wife. A prenup says you don't trust her."
"If you pray to God for a good spouse, you won't have to worry."
"A prenup is a preparation for a divorce and it shows you're not committed for life."
Is that so? Is that what a prenup says to you? Because the idea behind one is pretty similar to the Church's message/prayer FOR THE WIFE after the marriage, AND DURING THE ACTUAL MASS. The Church is basically saying, "Hey you just got married and we're in the middle of this mass for you, which is filled with graces, but We still think you, oh newly wed wife, need an EXTRA reminder to keep the faith, be faithful and watch out for the devil's deceits.
I guess the Church "doesn't trust the wife".
I guess the Church is wrong for "worrying about the wife" since the couple just went to mass.
I guess the Church should see that the Nuptial Blessing "presupposes a divorce, or problems" in the marriage.
A prenup is just an extension of the ideals contained in the Nuptial Blessing.
-
All of you can argue that a prenup would be pointless but you’d be ignoring reality and the fact that a good lawyer, who has experience in family court, can do a LOT to minimize the damage of false accusations and protect you from theft.
If prenups were all that effective, there wouldn't be a MGTOW movement. Men wouldn't be giving up on marriage to this extent if it were simple to avoid the injustice of the system.
-
If prenups were all that effective, there wouldn't be a MGTOW movement.
I'm not an expert on this movement but I do know it's more complex than you make it out to be. Some of the men in the movement are tired of DATING; they're tired of dealing with feminist women, period. They're not even thinking about marrige/divorce, because they can't even find a decent woman who wants to go to dinner, (who isn't selfish, self-absorbed, emotionally unstable and with a "disney complex" view of who their prince charming should be and what they "deserve").
-
That would be a fair judgment. The problem we're trying to avoid is the civil divorce process, whereby woman are NORMALLY awarded MUCH MORE THAN 50%. Any judgement in favor of the woman where she get's more than 50% is unjust and a prenup would help (but not guarantee) fairness. That's all i'm asking for.If the wife receives 50% then that is part of his support. She doesn't get 50% + child support. That's unfair and what a prenup is supposed to avoid.
If he wishes to help out his children more in the future (which I'm sure he would want to, regardless of most of your rash judgements to the contrary) he has the freedom to do so AS HE PLEASES, WHEN HE PLEASES, and in the manner HE CHOOSES. It's none of the damn court's/state's business.
And he can buy things DIRECTLY for his children, not be forced to give $ to his wife, who can then spend it on anything she wants. (Do the courts monitor child support payments and make sure the wife uses the $ ONLY for the children? Of course not, that would be anti-woman because we MUST trust her to do the right thing ALWAYS, especially when it comes to the children because she's a "loving" person and above reproach....even though she left her husband for frivolous reasons and has inflicted untold psychological damage on the children due to her selfishness...)
.
In my experiences here in TX, women get awarded much LESS than 50%. If she is abused and leaves the house, the court awards the house to the husband because she abandoned the house... the 50% divides the assests since the marriage began. It has nothing to do with the children.
.
Regarding the children... If she is the primary caretaker of the children, and she earns less than the father (which is usually the case) she most certainly SHOULD get child support from the father. She should not have to support their children alone. It is his moral duty to support his children. It is not an option for him to choose.
.
It IS the courts business only because there are so many men who don't fulfill their moral obligation to their children. It is the result of a godless society.
.
You act as though the child support from the husband is more than enough to pay for everything for his children with some left over for the mother to spend how she chooses. This is not how it works. Here in TX, the court determines how much, in their opinion, it takes to rear the children. The father pays HALF that. So the mother has to come up with the other half.
.
In some cases the father is awarded primary custody and the wife, if she makes more than the husband, has to pay child support. It works both ways.
.
If either left and divorced for frivolous reasons, God will sort it out and the punishments will be severe.
.
Best to know as much as you can about a future spouse and not get led around by feelings.
-
I'm not an expert on this movement but I do know it's more complex than you make it out to be. Some of the men in the movement are tired of DATING; they're tired of dealing with feminist women, period. They're not even thinking about marrige/divorce, because they can't even find a decent woman who wants to go to dinner, (who isn't selfish, self-absorbed, emotionally unstable and with a "disney complex" view of who their prince charming should be and what they "deserve").
.
Men and women both have difficulty. My daughter is having a terrible time finding a young man who doesn't want to marry her to have her be the money maker.
.
These apply to women as well as men:
https://youtu.be/zn_axv6eoOw
https://youtu.be/Co-idmwMPv4
-
In my experiences here in TX, women get awarded much LESS than 50%. If she is abused and leaves the house, the court awards the house to the husband because she abandoned the house... the 50% divides the assests since the marriage began. It has nothing to do with the children.
TX is probably a fairer state to men, than let's say the Northeast or West Coast. TX is probably more libertarian than most states, whose laws are repressive and suffocating.
Regarding the children... If she is the primary caretaker of the children, and she earns less than the father (which is usually the case) she most certainly SHOULD get child support from the father. She should not have to support their children alone. It is his moral duty to support his children. It is not an option for him to choose.
Many times, she's the primary caretaker because she STOLE the children from the husband when she destroyed the marriage by leaving. Again, you falsely and rashly assume the man is going to leave them destitute. Deep down, you don't trust men.
It IS the courts business only because there are so many men who don't fulfill their moral obligation to their children. It is the result of a godless society.
Again, back to reminding everyone of the "moral obligation" of the man to support his family, while the "moral obligation" of the woman to obey her husband and not kill the marriage and steal the children is pushed to the background. "I'm sure she had a good reason to leave." "He wasn't a good husband, so she had to leave to give a better life to her children."
You act as though the child support from the husband is more than enough to pay for everything for his children with some left over for the mother to spend how she chooses.
Your above comments are MISSING THE POINT. This whole debate covers many topics, but a large one in my mind is politics. The encroachment of the state, the growing big brother state/federal govts, the freemasonic influence in our lives - all of this is a political problem. I look at all of this through a libertarian viewpoint. The state has no business being involved, and even if they did (in the case of violence), their involvement should be minimized, purely from a politics standpoint. I want as limited govt as possible, everywhere, in all aspects of life.
Secondly, of course child support isn't enough from 1 person. No one ever said it was. If the woman left for non-church-approved reasons, her life should be rough. She should feel the pain of her sin and violation of her vows and the mockery she made of her promise before God. ...But the topic all of you feminist-supporters concentrate on, is what the husband owes the wife so that she can steal the children, raise them on her own and be satisfied with her decision.
I've said this at least 10x already, but i'll say it again - if a wife were to leave for church approved reasons, the husband owes whatever the courts say. If she leaves for non-church-approved reasons, she should get ADEQUATE help from her husband (as he decides, just as he decided before the divorce), and the courts should be involved minimally, because SHE INITITATED THIS CRISIS. Therefore, she should feel SOME consequences for her actions in this life, even though most of her consequences will be felt in eternity.
If the husband decides to give most of his $ to her and his children, then he can. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED BY THE COURTS, because THE HUSBAND IS THE PARTY WHO WAS INJURED. Most of you have failed to admit this, even though both real-life examples from Ladislaus showed clearly that the wife's leaving of the marriage was her fault and for selfish reasons only.
It's sad so many of you hate and distrust men. The media and hollywood have brainwashed you for sure. You should pray for God to remove your deep mistrust.
-
if a wife were to leave for church approved reasons, ...
and the courts should be involved minimally, because SHE INITITATED THIS CRISIS.
If she has a church-approved reason to leave then she didn't start the crisis, nor should she punished for it.
P.s. I don't hate or mistrust men anymore than I hate or distrust women. I am cautious of both.
-
TX,
You couldn’t have taken my comments more out-of-context. You copied/pasted 2 different scenarios and made them look like 1 thought. You’re either extremely dishonest or have a bad case of ADHD!
-
My daughter is having a terrible time finding a young man who doesn't want to marry her to have her be the money maker.
Based on your comments on the other thread, where you presume many men are violent and abusive (which is often a feminist excuse to avoid being obedient), your daughter probably picked up your extreme prejudiced ideals and only attracts wimpy men.
-
TX,
You couldn’t have taken my comments more out-of-context. You copied/pasted 2 different scenarios and made them look like 1 thought. You’re either extremely dishonest or have a bad case of ADHD!
I re-read your other post. So sorry. Must be ADHD today...
-
Based on your comments on the other thread, where you presume many men are violent and abusive (which is often a feminist excuse to avoid being obedient), your daughter probably picked up your extreme prejudiced ideals and only attracts wimpy men.
I do not presume. What I said was that it happens more than we think.
.
I never use the words probably as much as you and cdf have. Talk about prsumption...
-
Does a prenup protect the woman in cases where the husband cheats and leaves her penniless forced to support herself and her children?
-
I do not presume. What I said was that it happens more than we think.
How do you know how much I think it happens? How do you know how much ANYONE thinks it happens? Yes, you presumed much.
Does a prenup protect the woman in cases where the husband cheats and leaves her penniless forced to support herself and her children?
Yes, already been mentioned.
-
A state marriage license is essentially contractual submission of the man to his wife being romanced by the state.
Moreover, the woman can even be guilty of having an affair with real people, and proceed to "divorce" her husband simply for the reason of her not loving her husband anymore, and the courts will still rule in her favor. She will be awarded the man's house, assets, money, car, etc., regardless of her being at fault for the "divorce".
Men, make sure you have a prenuptial agreement to your satisfaction that's signed by the woman before you get married; and don't get a state marriage license. All you need is to be married by the Church.
-
Several women have made the argument that when couples get married, they should entrust everything to God, therefore the prenup should be avoided, because a prenup shows a lack of trust in each other, so there must not be real love involved. If that is their argument, then why do they demand a State marriage license, if they entrust their marriage to God, and they feel they and their husbands should try to live up to an ideal spousal trust? Why do they feel they need legal validation from the State?
Can you see the contradiction? The women demand trust of each other (husband & wife) only when the women are allowed to have leverage of taking the husband's hard-earned assets, home & money through a "divorce", and in order to allow this leverage to remain, there should be no outside force (prenup) disrupting it. Conversely and in contradiction, they demand an outside force - the State - to be involved in their marriage in a state contract (license) as a 3rd party.
Wake up from your slumber, "men".
(https://gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/007/764/586/original/553154653e25906d.jpg?1564881772)
-
All you need is to be married by the Church.
Agreed... however, how many priests out there will do so without first having seen a license? Serious question, as I know both N.O. and traditional priests who have conveyed that they wouldn't allow any marriage to proceed unless first obtaining a marriage license.
-
Well it isn't obvious who Syracuse is at all.
-
Agreed... however, how many priests out there will do so without first having seen a license? Serious question, as I know both N.O. and traditional priests who have conveyed that they wouldn't allow any marriage to proceed unless first obtaining a marriage license.
Find a new priest. He's ignorant of the despotic, Antichrist system that is, also, anti-family ("divorce" breaks up families) and anti-men.
70% divorce rate and rising in the USA. If you were going to skydive, and you were told that there's a 70% probability that the parachute won't open, would you still jump? Most "divorces" are initiated by the wife, even if no reason is given.
The civil contract of involving the state as a 3rd party in your marriage gives the court system the power neuter men. Look at the latest thread about the trad Catholic man whose Jezebel wife "divorced" him and took everything from him including his children.
-
Find a new priest.
Very easily said; not so easily done.
He's ignorant of the despotic, Antichrist system that is, also, anti-family ("divorce" breaks up families) and anti-men.
That about sums up the entirety of, well, all of Western civilization, including first and foremost the United States. So where do you live?
-
Do we not live in a Crisis of the Church? Trads can't cherry-pick the emergencies. You don't even need a priest to get validly married.
Latin Church:
Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law (bishop/priest/deacon) cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.