Full intention to sign prenuptial agreement on finances

[ToeInTheWater]

Cite?

The numbers I have seen are much lower, especially for Catholics. Catholics have approximately a 28% divorce rate.

It seems the “50% divorce rate” or is one of those urban legends that sadly have made many people approach marriage as literally a 50/50 toss-up, and many seem to think “if the marriage is fated to fail, then there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. All I can do is cross my fingers and pray that my marriage does work out”.

I am really not sure where the “majority of marriages fail” notion comes from. I can as I have seen it espoused not only from the “liberal” types who think marriage until death do you part is unrealistic, or who come from families that are indeed riddled with divorce. I understand how such people would see marriage as having no advantages over cohabitation, only the risk of a messy divorce.

But many conservatives who personally believe in “death do you part” also seem to prefer to believe stats that show, essentially, that the secular world is going to h@ll in a handbasket, and only a tiny minority of marriages actually succeed. I have seen many times a News article being posted with stats that seem to show hope that traditional marriage and sexual ethics still has a chance, only to have cynical Catholics shoot them down.

So, the report that fewer and fewer HS kids are having sex was greeted as “Eh, maybe they’re not having intercourse but I bet they’re doing plenty of other sexually sinful things”. And a recent report of the marriage rate increasing was met with “Eh, I bet that’s just from gays getting married, that doesn’t count”.

I really don’t understand the appeal of the “world is full of hell bound heathens, only me and a tiny remnant will remain steadfast” mentality - or perhaps I do. Many such people seem to presume they themselves have an automatic ticket to Heaven, and will never have to deal with the icky sinners they have to deal with on Earth, but will be happily sitting on a cloud gazing down at Hell watching the heretics and gays and divorced people burn for all eternity.

(Now, most of the people with this attitude that I’ve encountered are OSAS fundamentalists, but occasionally I see it in Catholics too.)

This is pretty definitive.

People keep saying that divorce and marriage breakup is “a thing” in the real world. Obviously this is true. But there is such a thing as going in with the wrong attitude and I imagine most marriages that break up are marriages of people who really don’t give a rat’s tail about the indissoluble sacrament.of marriage.

Again, you may call me naive, but I really think if you don’t trust your intended then you shouldn’t be getting married. If you go into marriage suspicious of your future wife, then that’s not really a vote of confidence for the relationship.

I have noticed that most of the people who express severe distrust of their theoretical future wives, and a fear of not only being the victim of a divorce, but of being “taken to the cleaners” by an evil vengeful woman, aren’t anywhere close to dealing with actual candidates for the position of wife. Same with those who think the ideal wife is a submissive doormat who unquestioningly serve them hand and foot.

 

[pnewton]

Cite your source. The Marriage tribunals are very busy these days. God Bless, Memaw

It is in the link he gave. (Georgetown)

Note though, the research is the rate of divorced people, not divorced marriages.

Say three Catholics marry and stay married for life. A fourth divorces, not once, but three times, going from man to man (or woman to woman). The rate of divorced people is 25%, but the divorce rate is still 50%.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Put the family wealth and land in a legal trust, with someone other than you as the executor.

Personal wealth and subsequent earnings are part of the marital pot, and belong to both of you.

CC does not permit prenups because it shows that someone does not have understanding of the true nature of marriage since they are preparing to divorce even before the marriage has been contracted.

If I were your woman I would run away from you as fast as I can. She deserves better.

 

[Xantippe]

It is in the link he gave. (Georgetown)

Note though, the research is the rate of divorced people, not divorced marriages.

Say three Catholics marry and stay married for life. A fourth divorces, not once, but three times, going from man to man (or woman to woman). The rate of divorced people is 25%, but the divorce rate is still 50%.

I’m a she, but that was probably a typo.

That’s a very good point about the stats.

 

[Xantippe]

It seems the “50% divorce rate” or is one of those urban legends that sadly have made many people approach marriage as literally a 50/50 toss-up, and many seem to think “if the marriage is fated to fail, then there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. All I can do is cross my fingers and pray that my marriage does work out”.

I am really not sure where the “majority of marriages fail” notion comes from. I can as I have seen it espoused not only from the “liberal” types who think marriage until death do you part is unrealistic,** or who come from families that are indeed riddled with divorce. ** I understand how such people would see marriage as having no advantages over cohabitation, only the risk of a messy divorce.

There really are more divorce-y demographics, as well as more divorce-y individuals and families. I’ve seen this in my extended family, where lightning keeps striking the same person or group of people over and over again. It’s not really a random phenomenon.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It is in the link he gave. (Georgetown)

Note though, the research is the rate of divorced people, not divorced marriages.

Say three Catholics marry and stay married for life. A fourth divorces, not once, but three times, going from man to man (or woman to woman). The rate of divorced people is 25%, but the divorce rate is still 50%.

I have also read in other sources that people who divorce and marry multiple times do indeed skew the divorce rates up to the 50% or more territory. Sadly, the 50% figure has resulted in many people getting the idea that marriages are a toss-up, with success or failure being completely random, and so getting married is taking a big gamble as if you were betting your whole future on a coin-flip. Of course, reality is much more complex.

Most secular articles I have read on the “divorce rate” do not tout the 50% stat anymore even for marriages, more in the 40% range. Apparently the rate peaked sometime in the 1970s or 1980.

One example: this article from the NYT, certainly not a family oriented conservative source by any means.

nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/divorce-rate-its-not-as-high-as-you-think.html

How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple – and flawed – calculation: the annual marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In 2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970’s led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward.

However, certainly some of the decline is due to fewer people getting married in the first place, and it may be the case that many of the “starter marriages” between young people that were ending in divorce 20 years ago (think “Brenda and Eddie”), are simply not occurring in the first place. This may or may not be a good thing.

The NCR article certainly notes that certainly there are factors making it more or less likely for a Catholic to divorce:

Looking at national surveys, the post stated, “Catholics stand out, with only 28% of the ever-married having divorced at some point,” compared to more than 40% of those with no religious affiliation, 39% of Protestants and 35% of those of another religious faith.

Furthermore, Catholics who marry other Catholics are also less likely to divorce than Catholics married to people of other faiths.

A 2007 survey from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate estimates that only 27% of Catholics married to other Catholics have ever experienced divorce, compared to nearly half of Catholics married to Protestants or to spouses with no religious belief.

So, if “Catholic marriage” is defined as a “marriage between two Catholics” then the divorce rate for such marriages, though not mentioned in the article, then this would likely be in the 20-30% range as well.

 

[AdamP88]

I have also read in other sources that people who divorce and marry multiple times do indeed skew the divorce rates up to the 50% or more territory. Sadly, the 50% figure has resulted in many people getting the idea that marriages are a toss-up, with success or failure being completely random, and so getting married is taking a big gamble as if you were betting your whole future on a coin-flip. Of course, reality is much more complex.

Unfortunately not a particularly Catholic view. I’ve seen this view most often promoted on MGTOW forums and from certain members of CAF who align themselves with the MGTOW and similar movements.

What it doesn’t take into account is the fact that one’s effort, or lack thereof, put into the marriage is a factor, as well as the personal views and baggage.

I mean, if a guy goes into marriage suspicious that the woman wants to do him over and leave him with nothing, then that’s hardly going to be good for the marriage.

 

[pnewton]

What is MGTOW?

 

[heidi_storage]

What is MGTOW?

“Men going their own way,” ie never marrying or entering a serious relationship with a woman.

 

[AdamP88]

What is MGTOW?

Sorry…men going their own way. Basically a movement that believes that men have had it worse through the millennia than women and that modern marriage and divorce is weighted against men.

They also tend to believe that women are deceptive by nature and the only way for a marriage to work according to the natural order is by women being completely submissive to men in marriage.

 

[AdamP88]

Ah yes…if I recall correctly Heidi_Storage is somewhat sympathetic to them?

 

[1990Domer]

Cite your source. The Marriage tribunals are very busy these days. God Bless, Memaw

The 50% stat has a large bias because it factors in couple who have been married 2, 3 or more times.

 

[1990Domer]

It is in the link he gave. (Georgetown)

Note though, the research is the rate of divorced people, not divorced marriages.

Say three Catholics marry and stay married for life. A fourth divorces, not once, but three times, going from man to man (or woman to woman). The rate of divorced people is 25%, but the divorce rate is still 50%.

Oops…should have read your post.

And @Xantippe did cite her source. It’s hyperlinked.

 

[heidi_storage]

Ah yes…if I recall correctly Heidi_Storage is somewhat sympathetic to them?

I am, actually, although I am certainly happy my husband married me and I hope for my children to marry and have good marriages. But I don’t want to derail the thread. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the OP to want to secure property to future generations–that’s been done for a long time–but agree that a prenup isn’t the only or even best way to do it. (Just don’t leave your hypothetical wife in Mrs. Bennett’s position, eh?)

 

[Xantippe]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the OP to want to secure property to future generations–that’s been done for a long time–but agree that a prenup isn’t the only or even best way to do it. (Just don’t leave your hypothetical wife in Mrs. Bennett’s position, eh?)

Yeah.

The thing to remember is that you won’t be around forever, so don’t set things up so that it only works as long as you are alive and in possession of all your faculties.

Set it up so that it will work even if you are injured, ill, brain damaged or when you die.

To make this very clear, this means being willing to educate your heirs and let go to some extent. On my mom’s side of the family, there was a tight-fisted widowed grandpa who kept all the farm property in a huge trust, and kept his adult farmer children in dependence and poverty into middle age. My oh my what a mess it was when he started slipping into dementia at a relatively early age and started writing checks to whoever called and getting sold imaginary gold coins by con artists!..Moral of story–don’t try to use money to control people and make independence and good decision-making by your heirs your goal, not keeping them under your thumb as long as possible.

Have a sense of your own mortality (it’s a good spiritual practice anyway) and realize that this life is fleeting, and that the money needs to be a blessing for your family, not a curse.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Long before we got to the prenup stage, I’d want to know if my partner really believed “no one is immune from divorce”, “anything can happen”, “you never really know about someone”, and all of the other anti-marriage sentiments expressed on this thread. Those sentiments are where the desire to “protect” yourself from your spouse come from, and anyone truly interested in a secure, stable, lifelong marriage is going to look for someone else when they hear this. Those who agree that divorce is something that just happens sometimes will stick around, and probably be pretty amenable to a prenup when it gets to that point.

In which case, I’d say those are two people who deserve each other and all the heartache that comes with being married to someone who isn’t “all in”.

 

[Bataar]

I mean, if a guy goes into marriage suspicious that the woman wants to do him over and leave him with nothing, then that’s hardly going to be good for the marriage.

You don’t have to go into the marriage suspicious at all, but it seems to make sense to recognize a very realistic possibility. I’d bet most Catholic marriages that end in divorce started out with neither person believing it would happen to them.

 

[JanetF]

Good Morning,

I originally for the past year have had the full intention to sign a pre-nuptial agreement due to familial wealth and land inheritance and my current career. Recently, I learned this may be a problem. Are there any Church teachings on this? To be quite honest, I am not sure I still would not have a future wife sign this line. I will not have someone who can do a 180 squander away my family (only son/child) and late father’s endowment and name. To me, it is far more a legal issue than anything else. The Western World is far different today than 100 years ago and things are very legalistic with women having an upper hand in many terms of marriage, such as child custody post-divorce. I am hardly “traditional” as commonly thought of on Catholic forums but very traditional in terms of who controls the wealth in a relationship as well as familial reputation or name. I have no intentions of ever having a divorce, but in case of her ever having that inclination (you never know), it appears to be something I will not budge on.

I am seeking authoritative teachings on this matter.
I am in the U.S. and live in NYC if anyone has any personal referrals RE: above.

Regards,

AT

I’m no lawyer, but can you not put your inheritance into some sort of protected trust for any future children you may have, thereby aleviating the need for a pre-nup, which many women, myself included would refuse to sign based on principle?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Long before we got to the prenup stage, I’d want to know if my partner really believed “no one is immune from divorce”, “anything can happen”, “you never really know about someone”, and all of the other anti-marriage sentiments expressed on this thread. Those sentiments are where the desire to “protect” yourself from your spouse come from, and anyone truly interested in a secure, stable, lifelong marriage is going to look for someone else when they hear this. Those who agree that divorce is something that just happens sometimes will stick around, and probably be pretty amenable to a prenup when it gets to that point.

And when it comes to Catholic marriage, I suspect that even if no prenup agreement is made, the mere attitude that “divorce just happens sometimes” may make the marriage invalid.

You don’t have to go into the marriage suspicious at all, but it seems to make sense to recognize a very realistic possibility. I’d bet most Catholic marriages that end in divorce started out with neither person believing it would happen to them.

So, do you personally think divorce is just something that happens, like a hurricane, and can never be predicted or prevented? Actually, even a hurricane gives some warning before it hits a particular town. So do tornadoes. Maybe earthquakes are a better analogy.

Anyway, I can certainly think of cases where people marry expecting to eventually divorce; that is the whole concept of “starter marriages”.

Some “shotgun” marriages also fall under this. I recall one CAF poster who converted from a very secular lifestyle, who readily admitted to marrying her first husband only because she was pregnant at the time, and marrying only for the benefit of the baby, but not even committing to sexual fidelity, and fully expecting to divorce when the child was old enough for school and she wouldn’t need a man to help care for the child.

I can also recall some Catholic posters seeing no problem with the idea of shotgun marriages because (1) there is a chance it could work out, and that would be best for the baby and (2) even if it doesn’t, there’s a slam-dunk case for annulment, and both spouses could walk away knowing they can eventually get an annulment and remarry, and at least the baby will have started life out in an intact home for their first few years.

Now I personally think this attitude completely ignores the negative impact of divorce on a child. But even if there was no such issue, I think such a marriage would clearly be invalid.

There’s also a big difference between recognizing the possibility of divorce and recognizing the possibility that your wife is, from the outset, scheming to ruin you financially though a divorce. That’s the kind of frankly misogynistic attitude that I often get from the MGTOW folks. They have a very deep suspicion of women in general, though some will claim that women weren’t always out to get men, but that the “evil man hating feminists” have corrupted the vast majority of women over the last 50-60 years or so into seeing men as the enemy.

Some do state they might be willing to change their stance for a “traditional” woman who (1) believes in wifely submission and would never consider divorce or (2) are powerless to initiate divorce proceedings even if she wanted, because she has no ability to support herself and no education beyond the minimum necessary to care for her husband and kids.

Hence the quasi-fetish some MGTOW have for “mail order brides” from a more traditional society, who they imagine will fulfill their fantasies to have a woman fawning over them and obeying their every word , and not actually require any sacrifice into the relationship themselves. Some also consider they might, when financially stable, consider marrying a very young woman, as in late teens or early twenties, specifically because they will have power and authority over them.

 

[Xantippe]

You don’t have to go into the marriage suspicious at all, but it seems to make sense to recognize a very realistic possibility. I’d bet most Catholic marriages that end in divorce started out with neither person believing it would happen to them.

Let’s talk about that. In that case, why stop with a prenup?

How about the following:

–Don’t relocate or sacrifice your education or career for your spouse’s sake.
–Don’t put your spouse through college or technical training.
–Insist on 50/50 split of all expenses and 50/50 split of everything–including when your spouse is unemployed, sick or in school.
–Don’t earn more or work more than your spouse.
–Don’t be an SAHM.
–Don’t let your wife be an SAHM
–Don’t have more than two children. How will you manage 6+ kids when you’re divorced?
–Heck, don’t have kids at all.
–Don’t bother being nice to your in-laws–it’s not like you’re going to be dealing with them for the next 40+ years.

All of those moves are at least somewhat plausible in a high-divorce environment BUT a) they make marriage less rewarding and could make the couple less effective as a team b) some of them are obvious annulment fodder and c) all of them have the potential of contributing directly to divorce.