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.  

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.

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.

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?

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."

^This.   And work on making yourself a virtuous potential spouse too, which would preclude your future virtuous spouse wanting to dump you.  

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.