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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.