Pre-Nuptual agreements and Annulment process

[Phemie]

This does seem to represent the opposite end of the spectrum. I especially dislike the idea that the meetings are brief and “just a few days before the wedding”…

It would be interesting if a study could be made of the level of pre-cana and the divorce/annulment rates…

At our parish the Bulletin states "Call the Parish office 6 months prior to the wedding date…Now this might sound like a lot of time and it might be assuming NO problems or surprises…But what if there are??
Considering how much is going on in the 6 months running up to a typical wedding, 6 months is next to nothing IMHO

Peace
James

What I also know is that there is there is no NFP training whatsoever and the priests have made it a point of not mentioning anything about ABC. Remember that I’m from Canada where the Winnipeg Statement in response to Humanae Vitae is still alive and well.

I’m also aware of a priest who continued on with a wedding ceremony after the couple answered “NO!” in response to “Will you accept children lovingly from God,and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” He was stunned by the response and just pretended he didn’t hear it. But he did discuss it with the seminarian after the ceremony saying “What the heck do you do at this point?!?”

 

[joanofarc2008]

In addition to what I said before I do want to say that the deacon that did my marriage prep did a wonderful marriage prep that lasted almost a year. Sometimes things happen and when one spouse wants to hide something he/she will. Sometimes it is just due dilligence.

 

[FAB]

Where is it that you work? - What country?
This sounds wonderful.
I never went through anything like this.

Peace
James

My Diocese has required this kind of prepartion for years. I think you will find that many if not most do in the US. It of course might fall apart on the parish level, but the Church is actively working to advoid divorces from the begining. On draw back is that many couples don’t want to go through the process and either live together or get married by a judge. As I deacon I get mostly the issues to straighted out and to validate the marrige. Most often when the couple has children and want them to recieve the sacraments. The prepartion is still the same. Even though many have been together for years.

 

[FAB]

Not necessarily, pre-nups sometimes deal with what happens to property/money and probate rights in the event of the death of one of the spouses. This is most common in second marriages of older couples with adult children.

This is a reason for a will, not a pre-nup.

 

[Leegal]

I could not find my other post on Canon Law but here’s something else.

According to The Code of Canon Law,** “A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.”** However, prenuptial agreements can cover more than just marital conditions. As long as the prenuptial agreement is not in violation of this provision, it is perfectly acceptable to have.

An example of one of these prenuptial agreements would pertain to a situation in which one spouse dies. A prenuptial agreement could be established to determine the way in which the property should be divided among the children. **In this particular case, the agreement has nothing to do with the conditions of the marriage. **It is simply a stipulation as to what should be done in the case of certain events.

So, the prenup cannot say “in the event of a divorce you get $100,000.” It can say, "in the event of my death, my children will receive these assets (likely premarital assets), and you agree that in the event of my death that you will receive “X.”

Afterall, if a person has children and has accumulated assets from the previous marriage, the Church would acknowledge the right of the parent to dispose of those pre-second-marital assets – that had nothing to do with the future spouse – in a way fitting to his/her children.

So, the pre-nup makes sure this will happen, in addition to a will and any assets that the parent may already have given the children or any trusts he/she might have set up for those children – adult or not. I see this as practical common sense. It does not assume a divorce – it assume there might be a death.

If a pre-nup places any future condition on the success of the marriage, or a condition about having more children, or certain children, a Catholic cannot sign the pre-nup. It cannot even say that there MUST be more children because, as I said in another post, if a hysterectomy results due to a medical condition, that does not invalidate a Catholic marriage so it cannot be a condition of a pre-nup. If a man is later found to have a decreased sperm count, despite having children in a first marriage, that does not invalidate a marriage.

 

[FAB]

My husband is one of three partners in a professional services firm. In their partnership agreement is a clause that requires any partner who gets married to have a pre-nup that would protect the other partners in the business in the unfortunate event of a divorce. When we were talking marriage, I have to admit that this left a very bad taste in my mouth. After further consideration, however, I realized that it made sense. It made sense to my priest too when I explained the circumstances.

I could understand this reasoning to protect the buisness. Personlly I would want to read the document so that the only thing it addresses is the busness concerns.

 

[FAB]

I could not find my other post on Canon Law but here’s something else.

According to The Code of Canon Law,** “A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly.”** However, prenuptial agreements can cover more than just marital conditions. As long as the prenuptial agreement is not in violation of this provision, it is perfectly acceptable to have.

An example of one of these prenuptial agreements would pertain to a situation in which one spouse dies. A prenuptial agreement could be established to determine the way in which the property should be divided among the children. **In this particular case, the agreement has nothing to do with the conditions of the marriage. **It is simply a stipulation as to what should be done in the case of certain events.

So, the prenup cannot say “in the event of a divorce you get $100,000.” It can say, "in the event of my death, my children will receive these assets (likely premarital assets), and you agree that in the event of my death that you will receive “X.”

Afterall, if a person has children and has accumulated assets from the previous marriage, the Church would acknowledge the right of the parent to dispose of those pre-second-marital assets – that had nothing to do with the future spouse – in a way fitting to his/her children.

So, the pre-nup makes sure this will happen, in addition to a will and any assets that the parent may already have given the children or any trusts he/she might have set up for those children – adult or not. I see this as practical common sense. It does not assume a divorce – it assume there might be a death.

If a pre-nup places any future condition on the success of the marriage, or a condition about having more children, or certain children, a Catholic cannot sign the pre-nup. It cannot even say that there MUST be more children because, as I said in another post, if a hysterectomy results due to a medical condition, that does not invalidate a Catholic marriage so it cannot be a condition of a pre-nup. If a man is later found to have a decreased sperm count, despite having children in a first marriage, that does not invalidate a marriage.

As stated before, these conditions are reasons to have a will not a pre-nup. The reason for a pre-nup is divsion of property in case of a divorce. To me it would show that there is not a firm commitment to a sactramental marriage, if at the beginig the couple is thinking what am I going to get ouot of this if it doesn’t work.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

I was sure when I married my ex…turns out that I wasn’t mature enough - did not know enough etc…to truly understand what I was “Sure” about…

In any case…No amount of study and documentation of “Pre-cana” will eliminate ALL divorces and annulments. And honestly I don’t think it ever could or should. But it hopefully would cut back on the numbers.

Yeah, a lot of couples in our culture have done that. It’s a shame. That’s why the Church allows for annulments.

I don’t really like prenuptual agreements. To me, it seems like, I love and trust you, but HERE, sign this, so the law can cover me if you screw it up. It’s like having an insurance policy against another person, in essence; betting against them.

 

[jilly4ski]

This is a reason for a will, not a pre-nup.

This is from a incomplete knowledge of the law. (States are either communal property states like Texas or Marital property states, which are the majority). In a marital property states all assets gained during the course of the marriage become part of the marital property and are thus cannot be bequeathed until the death of the second spouse or is subject to a forced share. A pre-nup says that the spouse waives their right to things like inheritance or gifts received after the date of the marriage. They can also waive rights to property or assets gained before the marriage which could become marital property or subject to the forced share. This stuff cannot be done in a will, and is often up to the whims of the court to decide if there is a question on marital or non marital, property. (And just because it is a non-marital assent it is still subject to the forced share).

 

[jilly4ski]

As stated before, these conditions are reasons to have a will not a pre-nup. The reason for a pre-nup is divsion of property in case of a divorce. To me it would show that there is not a firm commitment to a sactramental marriage, if at the beginig the couple is thinking what am I going to get ouot of this if it doesn’t work.

No a pre-nup can and does divide property so that the deceased can devise property as they see fit. Civil marriage actually prevents people from divesting their property in any manner as they see fit. States have laws that prevent spouses from disinheriting their spouses. What it does, is have the spouse waive their rights to property or benefits they would otherwise be entitled to, (or potentially entitled to).

 

[JRKH]

Yeah, a lot of couples in our culture have done that. It’s a shame. That’s why the Church allows for annulments.

And I for one am grateful that she has. Praise be to God in His infinite Mercy.

I don’t really like prenuptual agreements. To me, it seems like, I love and trust you, but HERE, sign this, so the law can cover me if you screw it up. It’s like having an insurance policy against another person, in essence; betting against them.

Yes in some (many) cases this might be true…In certain other things, it can be a good idea…

This is not a “pre-nup” per-se but when my Dear Lady and I were planning to get married, she made it clear that she wanted her own checking account and basically wanted her earnings kept separate from mine.
The reason was that in her previous marriage the husband was a spendthrift and ran through their moneys like water…(in addition to cheating and other things).

Now - I could have opposed this on the grounds of what you mention above - not really trusting - but I chose not to. I simply said, “Fine. Then what say I take care of these bills and you take care of these, and on other stuff we’ll talk about it.”
By the time we were married two years, she knew that the division of funds was unnecessary but it worked for us and later when she retired she just had her social security put in my / our account and closed her checking account…

Sometimes a person’s history can cause them to be a bit “gun-shy” and cautious. In such a case allowing for some “agreement” (written or otherwise) sets their mind at ease and allows trust to grow more easily and naturally.

Peace
James

 

[Phemie]

And I for one am grateful that she has. Praise be to God in His infinite Mercy.

Yes in some (many) cases this might be true…In certain other things, it can be a good idea…

This is not a “pre-nup” per-se but when my Dear Lady and I were planning to get married, she made it clear that she wanted her own checking account and basically wanted her earnings kept separate from mine.
The reason was that in her previous marriage the husband was a spendthrift and ran through their moneys like water…(in addition to cheating and other things).

Now - I could have opposed this on the grounds of what you mention above - not really trusting - but I chose not to. I simply said, “Fine. Then what say I take care of these bills and you take care of these, and on other stuff we’ll talk about it.”
By the time we were married two years, she knew that the division of funds was unnecessary but it worked for us and later when she retired she just had her social security put in my / our account and closed her checking account…

Sometimes a person’s history can cause them to be a bit “gun-shy” and cautious. In such a case allowing for some “agreement” (written or otherwise) sets their mind at ease and allows trust to grow more easily and naturally.

Peace
James

And that is the reason that DH and I have his accounts, my accounts and our accounts. The major savings account is in my name so that way we have savings. As much as I love DH, he has no idea how to deal with money and if its in an accessible account we will be broke. I learned that the hard way around the time of our first wedding anniversary when creditors started calling the house. At that time I took over bill payments and it’s been that way for the last 35 years.

 

[JRKH]

And that is the reason that DH and I have his accounts, my accounts and our accounts. The major savings account is in my name so that way we have savings. As much as I love DH, he has no idea how to deal with money and if its in an accessible account we will be broke. I learned that the hard way around the time of our first wedding anniversary when creditors started calling the house. At that time I took over bill payments and it’s been that way for the last 35 years.

That’s great. Was it an easy transition or did he want to fight you on it…I hope it was easy…

Peace
James

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is a reason for a will, not a pre-nup.

Regardless of how one thinks it should be handled, it in no way invalidates the consent of marriage. Nor does a pre-nupt that deals with death contradict the theology of marriage in any way, shape or form. So unless the priest is willing to take legal liability for the couple, I’d just let that go…

I could understand this reasoning to protect the buisness. Personlly I would want to read the document so that the only thing it addresses is the busness concerns.

Technically, pre-nupts are irrelevant to the consent of marriage. If the couple has a pre-nupt as an “insurance policy” in case they are left in the lurch by the other, while I wouldn’t think its great I also wouldn’t feel its my place to demand they tear it up. Asking to read people’s personal legal documents, IMHO, goes beyond my authority. As long as they understand the Catholic theology of marriage and state that they agree with it and intend it in their marriage there’s little else canon law requires…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is from a incomplete knowledge of the law. (States are either communal property states like Texas or Marital property states, which are the majority). In a marital property states all assets gained during the course of the marriage become part of the marital property and are thus cannot be bequeathed until the death of the second spouse or is subject to a forced share. A pre-nup says that the spouse waives their right to things like inheritance or gifts received after the date of the marriage. They can also waive rights to property or assets gained before the marriage which could become marital property or subject to the forced share. This stuff cannot be done in a will, and is often up to the whims of the court to decide if there is a question on marital or non marital, property. (And just because it is a non-marital assent it is still subject to the forced share).

 

[Rence]

This question builds off of another thread on Pre-nuptual agreements and Annulments…

What would you think of something equivalent to a “pre-nuptual agreement” being used by the Church in the Pre-Cana Programs as a “pro-active” step on the part of the Church to build stronger marriages, reduce the number of divorces and consequent annulments?

If the Church can protect the individuals when the unthinkable happens, then I’m all for it. Prenups are designed to protect both parties and their children and other family (for example, making sure that a home that a brother has invested in does not end up marital property and divided with the brother losing all investment in the case of an ugly divorce). If the Church can protect them (which of course, they have no legal pull to do so) then I wouldn’t mind. But claiming that prenups invalidate a marriage just leaves parties out in the cold.

I think the directive should be that people educate themselves and make sure that their prenup is not based on any future outcome of the marriage, so that it won’t invalidate a marraige, and that it will be acceptable to the diocese, not trying to cirumvent civil law that is there to protect people.

Consider the extensive questionnaire that is filled out by one applying for an annulment. In my case, If I remember correctly, it was something like 43 or 45 essay questions that took considerable time to thoughtfully and truthfully answer.

Why not use the same concept/principle in the pre-cana process?
Maybe not a questionnaire to be filled out, but rather something that contains teachings - expectations, as well as some questions where each page or “concept” must be initialed and then the entire booklet signed off on. The couple would receive a copy and the parish would retain a copy to be filed with the marriage record.

As a beginning thought - the process could look at the primary reasons for annulments being granted, and then begin building a pre-cana “agreement” on these.

I thought they were supposed to be learning these expectations in pre-canna anyway? Maybe the solution is making sure the pre-cana classes conform to Church criteria?

I think strong-handing people will just increase the number of civil marriages and decrease the number of Sacramental marriages, but as always, that just MOHO A smart person would create a prenup that conforms to Church rules. When push comes to shove and someone’s ability to provide for themselves is compromised, getting an annullment just to remarry will take second place. It happens even today, and there is no iron-fisting.

People are more educated today. They go through a lot to get educations in the form of college or trades, work hard, and get married later with assets already earned and obtained. They also see all the ugly and destructive divorces around them. It’s not reasonable to expect someone not to try and protect themselves and their kids and any other family memember if things go wrong. In fact, in some cases, it can be irresponsible. If the Church tried to take the ability of people to protect themselves by not allowing prenups and try to strong hand them, people will be able to say that the Church doesn’t care about them. After all, there is nothing the Church can do to save a person when things go wrong and their spouse victimizes them. They’re on their own.

 

[Leegal]

As stated before, these conditions are reasons to have a will not a pre-nup. The reason for a pre-nup is divsion of property in case of a divorce. To me it would show that there is not a firm commitment to a sactramental marriage, if at the beginig the couple is thinking what am I going to get ouot of this if it doesn’t work.

As stated before, Canon Law allows the pre-nup in this case only.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

I think if someone had handed my xh the questions that are asked on the validity of marriage before we were married he still would have gone through with it as he still needed my money…

You bring up an excellent point, Joanofarc. Highly motivated people with nefarious intentions will not let a set of questions stand between them and what they really want. Just ask an embassy official who interviews applicants for fiancee visas all day.

 

[Phemie]

That’s great. Was it an easy transition or did he want to fight you on it…I hope it was easy…

Peace
James

He never fought me over my taking over paying the bills. We fought over his lying about having paid the bills and about having taken out a loan without having said anything about it. Once the air was cleared on that and we came to an understanding that borrowing money had to be a joint decision (I loathe being in debt and will do without a lot of things so that I have money in the savings account and no debt) things settled down until a few years later he decided he wanted a new, unnecessary camera and lied about borrowing money through his work loan program to buy it and then tried to pass the camera off as a friend’s until someone from work asked him about it in my presence. It was a tense moment and it took a while to trust him again.

 

[JRKH]

If the Church can protect the individuals when the unthinkable happens, then I’m all for it. Prenups are designed to protect both parties and their children and other family (for example, making sure that a home that a brother has invested in does not end up marital property and divided with the brother losing all investment in the case of an ugly divorce). If the Church can protect them (which of course, they have no legal pull to do so) then I wouldn’t mind. But claiming that prenups invalidate a marriage just leaves parties out in the cold.

I think the directive should be that people educate themselves and make sure that their prenup is not based on any future outcome of the marriage, so that it won’t invalidate a marraige, and that it will be acceptable to the diocese, not trying to cirumvent civil law that is there to protect people.

Agreed. There is another thread going that speaks to pre-nups more specifically. I intended this thread to be more focused on Pre-cana issues.

I thought they were supposed to be learning these expectations in pre-canna anyway? Maybe the solution is making sure the pre-cana classes conform to Church criteria?

My thoughts too. Beef them up where they need to and make people “sign off” on them…something that helps them recognize the seriousness of the matter.

I think strong-handing people will just increase the number of civil marriages and decrease the number of Sacramental marriages, but as always, that just MOHO

You may be right. But I don’t think that the Church should concern itself with that so much as making sure that those wishing to be married “in the Church” ARE “married in the Church”. If that causes more people to choose another (sinful?) option…Not much we can do about their free will choice.

Peace
James