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.

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? 

 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.

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.

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".

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 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.