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.
Poll
