.

This attitude of women, also, applies to their stance on prenups and their demand for a State marriage license, while they ignore the fact that true marriage is still conferred by the Church and seen by the Eyes of God, absent a State marriage license.

I've said it before, and I'll say it, again, women's opposition to prenups isn't truly premised off of Catholic teaching and tradition, but rather a distorted, social-engineered, ingrained, feminist ego to resist anything that neutralizes her position over men.

A woman who rejects a prenup is an ominous sign that she will be disobedient to her husband after they get married, and that will be the LEAST of his problems.

No doubt you will say it again and again, but it does not get any more true no matter how many times you repeat it.

There are legitimate concerns that planning what one will do in the case of divorce is not compatible with the Catholic teaching that divorce is never an option.  Unable to address these concerns, you make up motives that you attribute to those who oppose prenups. There is no basis whatsoever for your claims.

Jєωnek says:
Unable to address these concerns, you make up motives that you attribute to those who oppose prenups. There is no basis whatsoever for your claims.

You just described your own maneuvering the whole time and projected onto me. I've given plenty of facts (basis) for my claims.

Facts:
1) Courts exponentially favor women over men; and courts are subversive & legislate from the bench
2) There is a much higher probability of "divorce" than a marriage lasting "until death do us part"
3) When these "divorces" occur, the courts give the equity & houses to women, and women are given at least half of all other assets, wealth and savings, despite the man acquiring & building all of it or having owned it before they even got married.
4) "Trad Catholics" are not immune to the epidemic of "divorces". Plenty of "divorces" among trads.

Nothing you proposed about what Catholics should do is a true aegis (insurance plan or defense) for men to protect themselves from women preying on everything men built and acquired on their own. One of human conditions the Catholic Church warns us about is people failing what they should do, and teaching us to take measures to protect ourselves from the enemy - spiritual or temporal - who do the opposite of what they should do

Thus, the only viable option to protect men, who are considering marriage, is to get a prenup (and, even better, to reject getting a State marriage license).  

Nothing you have proposed is a solution to protect men. Everything you have stated is based off of a Catholic utopia that doesn't exist, nor will it ever exist, before Christ returns and establishes His Heavenly kingdom on earth. But that's what (you) Jєωs are good at, right? They draft up those utopias and sell them to gullible people. Look at communism, socialism, "social justice", "equality", etc. They offer no real solutions to help or protect people, rather they subject them to more deceit & ills.

Jєωnek says:
No doubt you will say it again and again, but it does not get any more true no matter how many times you repeat it.

Ain't no stopping the truth.

Jєωnek says:
There are legitimate concerns that planning what one will do in the case of divorce is not compatible with the Catholic teaching that divorce is never an option.

Another subjective opinion with no substance justifying the rejection of prenups. You haven't posted one Catholic citation to support your argument.

 

You’re not distinguishing between CIVIL divorce (which the church allows in certain circuмstances) and divorce/re-marriage, which is never allowed.  

God tells us that murder is a grave offense.  Does that mean it doesn’t happen?  Does that mean we shouldn’t take precautions to protect ourselves in dangerous situations?  

God tells us that divorce/theft/re-marriage is a grave offense.  Does that mean it doesn’t happen?  Does that mean we shouldn’t take precautions to protect oneself from this evil?

If one commits the sin of murder the state steps in and sends the person to jail, as they should.  Also, people have the right to self-defense and the right to kill one who is threatening their life.

If one commits the sin of divorce (assuming it's not Church sanctioned, which should be rare), the state does NOT step in and help achieve justice; they promote and encourage injustice and mockery of a sacrament and a contract.  Does the spouse who is being divorced unjustly not have a right to self-defense and a protection of what is rightly theirs?

In the same way that guns/weapons deter criminals and promote safety, one could argue that a prenup could deter a temptation to destroy a marriage, which would be a great thing, and could ensure that spouses “work out their differences” and thus save them from hell. 

We don't actually know that a prenup deters temptation.  It is just as possible that a couple would hit a rough spot in their marriage and the prenup would make divorce seem like a better option. 

And how does one know at the time of the prenup which spouse will be divorce unjustly and need protection?

We don't actually know that a prenup deters temptation.  

If it was written properly, it could.

It is just as possible that a couple would hit a rough spot in their marriage and the prenup would make divorce seem like a better option. 

In Croix's example, assuming that the Church did not authorize a CIVIL divorce for the valid reasons of violence/cheating, then if the spouse who sought the sinful divorce was not rewarded with financial assets, this would no doubt deter one from exiting the marriage for frivolous reasons.

And how does one know at the time of the prenup which spouse will be divorce unjustly and need protection?

Duh, you don't.  It would be written equally to the benefit/protection of both spouses.

Duh, you don't.  It would be written equally to the benefit/protection of both spouses.

Could you be more specific, please?  I cannot think of how to do that.

I could imagine a prenup being written that specifically said that it only applied to civil divorce and that the couple would still be married in the eyes of God.  That would address my main objection.

Well, that's all it COULD apply to is civil divorce.  Let's say one of the couple becomes abusive and they separate as permitted by the Church.  Would it be necessarily bad to pursue civil divorce to protect the abused party from the other legally and financially?  I don't see it ... so long as any risk of scandal is avoided.