Marriage and prenuptual agreements?

[Steven_Merten]

Hello all,

Unfortunately, while the Church does not believe in divorce, the State does not believe in annullments. The Church granting your spouce an annullment, (I have heard statistics that in 95% of annulment attempts by spouces the Church does), and their goes half of everything you own because the State believes you were married.

I read a letter from a woman begging the Church not to destroy her marriage. In this case she loved her husband and wished to protect her five children. She begged the Church to allow God’s commandment to stand and protect her marriage. The Church told her that the annullment of her marriage was none of her business. She morned the loss of her husband and the loss of God’s protecting commandment. Kind of ironical that the Church would insist that one hand over half of all they own at marriage and, on the other hand tell one that now the loss of half of all that they own, through Church annullment, was none of the abandon spouce’s “business”.

 

[JGheen]

Steven Merten:

Hello all,

Unfortunately, while the Church does not believe in divorce, the State does not believe in annullments. The Church granting your spouce an annullment, (I have heard statistics that in 95% of annulment attempts by spouces the Church does), and their goes half of everything you own because the State believes you were married.

I read a letter from a woman begging the Church not to destroy her marriage. In this case she loved her husband and wished to protect her five children. She begged the Church to allow God’s commandment to stand and protect her marriage. The Church told her that the annullment of her marriage was none of her business. She morned the loss of her husband and the loss of God’s protecting commandment. Kind of ironical that the Church would insist that one hand over half of all they own at marriage and, on the other hand tell one that now the loss of half of all that they own, through Church annullment, was none of the abandon spouce’s “business”.

As I wrote in response to this posting on a different thread:

This certainly sounds scandalous. If it happened, I would think there were reasons (outside the cheating) that this marriage was annulled.

Remember, annulments are not just “Catholic divorces”. They represent a serious investigation into the validity of the marriage. If the marriage was not firm at the beginning, time cannot make it firm nor can pleading by the wife.

The desire to be married should not be a factor in determining the validity of a marriage, though it tugs at the heart to hear about a woman clinging to her vows. Nonetheless, if ‘desire’ is a factor - the ‘desire’ to not be married would also have to be considered a valid reason for an annulment.

 

[Karin]

Steven Merten:

Hello all,

Unfortunately, while the Church does not believe in divorce, the State does not believe in annullments.** CORRECT** The Church granting your spouce an annullment, (I have heard statistics that in 95% of annulment attempts by spouces the Church does), and their goes half of everything you own because the State believes you were married".

. You are confusing two seperate things. A divorce is a CIVIL LEGAL MATTER that has nothign to do with the Church.
An annulment ISSUED BY THE CHURCH (NOT A CIVIL MATTER) is stating that you never had a valid marriage …THIS IS A RELIGIOUS MATTER not CIVIL
Steven Merten:

I read a letter from a woman begging the Church not to destroy her marriage. In this case she loved her husband and wished to protect her five children. She begged the Church to allow God’s commandment to stand and protect her marriage. The Church told her that the annullment of her marriage was none of her business. She morned the loss of her husband and the loss of God’s protecting commandment. Kind of ironical that the Church would insist that one hand over half of all they own at marriage and, on the other hand tell one that now the loss of half of all that they own, through Church annullment, was none of the abandon spouce’s “business”.

Could you please provide a “source” or “link” for this letter. It seems that either you or someone else is using this exact paragraph on other threads. I find it hard to believe that the Church would tell her “her annulment” was none of her business…totally goes against what the annulment process is all about.

 

[JGheen]

Lisa4Catholics:

Does this not invalidate the marriage if you are preparing for divorce from the get go?Thoughts?:ehh:

My husband and I didn’t have a pre-nup because neither of us had significant assets before marriage to protect. However, if you are blessed with great wealth, I think a pre-nup might properly be part of your stewardship of your money.

Very few (if any) people going into marriage intend to divorce. If they did, why would they bother getting married? The only exception I can think of is gold diggers . . . and unfortunately, there are men and women who marry for money without the intention of being faithful or remaining married for life.

Anyone entering marriage with the intention of a faithful, lifelong commitment should have protection from those that (secretly) do not share this good faith.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Karin:

Could you please provide a “source” or “link” for this letter. It seems that either you or someone else is using this exact paragraph on other threads. I find it hard to believe that the Church would tell her “her annulment” was none of her business…totally goes against what the annulment process is all about.

Hello Karin,

It was in “The Catholic Answers” magazine as a letter sent in to Fr. Stravinskas about ten years ago. I love Fr. Straviskas and his answers. He is not with the magazine anymore. The Magazine is published by Our Sunday Visitor. I about fell over when I read his answer to this question. Since then I have heard other official Catholic instructors restate the same answer toward this woman’s situation. I assure you that if you start a thread on this story, this is the answer you will get from all official Catholic Church teachers.

It will make a good thread. Why don’t you start it?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Karin:

. You are confusing two seperate things. A divorce is a CIVIL LEGAL MATTER that has nothign to do with the Church.
An annulment ISSUED BY THE CHURCH (NOT A CIVIL MATTER) is stating that you never had a valid marriage …THIS IS A RELIGIOUS MATTER not CIVIL

Hello Karin,

Are not prenuptual agreements a civil matter? Is the Church confusing civil matters with religious matters?

 

[Karin]

Steven Merten:

Hello Karin,

Are not prenuptual agreements a civil matter? Is the Church confusing civil matters with religious matters?

Yup it(pre nup) sure is. But you where comparing an annulment to a divorce they can not be compared they are two different things.
No property or assests are disbursed in an annulment only in a civil divorce.
Please see post #14…it explains churchs stance on pre-nups pretty well!

 

[Steven_Merten]

Karin:

Yup it(pre nup) sure is. But you where comparing an annulment to a divorce they can not be compared they are two different things.
No property or assests are disbursed in an annulment only in a civil divorce.

Hello Karin,

What I am saying is that the Church is using her force to make devout Catholics not sign prenuptual agreements, a civil matter, or the Church will not marry them, a religious matter. Then when the Church determines the, religious matter, marriage, never existed through Church annulment, the civil matter that the Church insisted upon in order to marry in the Church, still exists as a civil matter. Does this make sence? The way I explained it, I mean?

So the Church is mixing civil and relgious matters in regards to who they will marry in the Church. Then in regards to Church annullment, the Church insists that the civil matter of distributing assets, after Church annulments, has nothing to do with them. Well is not the distribution of wealth, in the case of a Church annulment, the reason why a person would want the prenuptual agreement in the first place? It does not make sence, dose it?

 

[Karin]

Steven Merten:

Hello Karin,

What I am saying is that the Church is using her force to make devout Catholics not sign prenuptual agreements, a civil matter, or the Church will not marry them, a religious matter. Then when the Church determines the, religious matter, marriage, never existed through Church annulment, the civil matter that the Church insisted upon in order to marry in the Church, still exists as a civil matter. Does this make sence? The way I explained it, I mean?

So the Church is mixing civil and relgious matters in regards to who they will marry in the Church. Then in regards to Church annullment, the Church insists that the civil matter of distributing assets, after Church annulments, has nothing to do with them. Well is not the distribution of wealth, in the case of a Church annulment, the reason why a person would want the prenuptual agreement in the first place?
It does not make sence, dose it?

I understand what you are saying…dont know what to say in return though
Actually you usually get a civil divorce first than the annulment.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Karin:

I understand what you are saying…dont know what to say in return though
Actually you usually get a civil divorce first than the annulment.

Hello Karin,

How does that work. Say a good Catholic sees an attractive civilly married with children non-Christian person whom they are attracted too. Seeing that the Church sees such a potential spouce’s civil marriage as not protected by God’s commandment, does this not bear a certian amount of distruction of the family unit in the civil sector? Why do civil spouces get no protection from God’s commandment from Catholic suiters marrying their spouces, in the eyes of the Church?

 

[Karin]

Steven Merten:

Hello Karin,

How does that work.
Say a good Catholic sees an attractive civilly married with children non-Christian person whom they are attracted too.
Ok lets see if I understand what you are saying.
**Person A is Catholic & Single, they see Person B who is married (civil only no church marriage involved) ? Is that what you are saying? **
Seeing that the Church sees such a potential spouce’s civil marriage as not protected by God’s commandment, does this not bear a certian amount of distruction of the family unit in the civil sector?
**Are you saying that Person A and Person B above are married? **
Why do civil spouces get no protection from God’s commandment from Catholic suiters marrying their spouces, in the eyes of the Church?
**Little Confused here …sorry **

 

[GilbertKeith]

I have read all the posts above and I have a few things to add. In the interest of full disclosure I will state openly that I am an attorney with a general practice that often includes family and domestic cases. I am also a confessional, devoted Catholic who believes that the Church’s teaching on marriage is full, complete and correct.

I think that regarding the subject of prenutial or antenuptial agreements one would be mistaken if he had the impression that all such agreements are of the same kind and quality as those publicised in the divorces of celebrities.

In any civil marriage, there already exists the provisions under which its dissolution will be adjudicated. The state’s Divorce Code and caselaw supply the procedure and conditions to be adhered to when a divorce action is filed - every marriage will ‘default’ to this body of law in a divorce proceeding. Unfortunately, through the anti-family agenda of radical forces in law and society, most notably the radical gender feminists and gay-identity movements, civil marriage no longer resembles its sacramental counterpart in anything but form and ceremony.

Most, if not all states have statutory provisions for ‘unilateral no-fault divorce’ and marital misconduct may not be taken into account except in the award of alimony. Thus, either party may at any time dissolve the relationship without cause and theoretically suffer no penalty - the moving party’s position in proceedings for property distribution, spousal support, custody, alimony pendente lite etc. are unimpaired, and a motion for alimony will rarely suffer despite marital misconduct.

As a result, as Chesterton once remarked, frivilous divorce is soon followed by frivilous marriage. The state of marriage today is due to the ease of its civil dissolution and the Unconstitutional but very real advantages women receive in divorce proceedings. A conservative estimate is that 70% of divorces are initiated by women - obviously a result of the fact that a woman can expect to violate the vows of the marriage, unilaterally move for divorce, remove the husband from the house he worked to pay for, have physical custody of her children and obligate the man to continue to support her and maintain her lifestyle while she exercises her newfound autonomy to the fullest. I wholeheartedly believe that the natural balance of the institution of marriage has been upset by the gross imbalance of power that men and women experience in divorce proceedings. Is it any wonder that young men (such as myself) are reluctant to consider marriage? Consider what a young man risks upon entering the typical marriage in comparison to what the woman risks - not many women lose their home and children and are obligated to indefinite involuntary servitude upon divorce.

So what does this have to do with prenuptial agreements, you ask? In some states (such as Pennsylvania) the parties to a prenuptial agreement are free to include any provisions they wish and forego any statutory or property rights, as with any contract. Therefore the parties can insulate their marriage from the more capricious aspects of modern divorce law by removing ‘default’ property and custody advantages which allow one party to receive the benefits of the marriage without its obligations and surrender of autonomy. Not many women are obligated to cook, launder, and keep house ‘in the manner her husband was accustomed’ while she receives forced alimony payments from her husband.

In effect, in many states, a prenuptial agreement can make divorce less advantageous and thereby less likely. By its terms, a prenuptial agreement can fix mutual obligations and penalize the party who decides that he or she can derive the benefit of the other’s obligations without a correlative return. A prenuptial agreement can make the terms of the ‘marriage contract’ more binding than the ‘default’ position of the state divorce laws.

I think it would be proper to criticise as immoral and contrary to the requisites of a sacramental marriage any agreement that affected an impairment of the mutuality of reciprocal obligations necessary for a strong marital bond. An agreement which restores this mutuality by expressly removing the benefits of the marriage when one party unilaterally eschews his or her obligations, in my estimation, is much more in conformity with the Church’s teaching on sacramental marriage and ought to be considered a great asset to a Catholic Union.