Prenups?

[chevalier]

I was required to sign it if I were to marry my ex-girlfriend. It was devastating. I thought it was insulting and demeaning. I told her I didn’t want any claim on any inheritance she would get after marrying me (different law, not the same as US), but… Well, in the end she broke up with me. I’m glad I didn’t have to sign that. It does feel like an insult to marriage and preparing grounds for divorce.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This is worse than being in a pit full of vipers! If marriage were that simple anymore. It’s amazing how people’s good intentions are at the beginning, just to find they were disillusioned months or years later. Forget the Church that married them for better or worse…I’m not happy, it’s time for the lawyers to bail me out!! I’m taking everything plus +++ and so goes 'til death do us part!" The statistics state just as many first time Catholic marriages fail as do Protestants > 50%.

…so with that abstract reasoning, is it a valid marriage when converts to the faith have their marriage blessed 'convalidated", yet had a prior prenuptial agreement in their civil or protestant life.

My neighbor is less than 30 years old, not married, yet probably is worth > million $. He has a live in girlfriend (financee’), yet he won’t marry her unless she signs a pre-nup. So if she disagrees, she either remains shacked up and unmarried (Friends w/ benefits) or she moves on…America really is a smoldering cesspool. America will be rot from inside…because of the attack on the family and the legalese we have allowed.

Disclaimer: I don’t agree with the live-in/shacking up part.

But, on the flip side, you hear many times people get married for the wrong reasons. If he’s worth that much, what’s stopping her from marrying him for a few years just so she can make a quick buck in the end?

I think this is one of the reasons why men in my age bracket don’t want to get married.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I thought that marriage was about people not about money??

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I thought that marriage was about people not about money??

Yes, it should be about the people. But some people have twisted it

 

[CuriousInIL]

Can. 1102

This section of cannon law is far from clear to me. Is anyone aware of a definition of “a condition about the future”? Jus toff hand that seems more like a prohibition against agreements like we will marry but agree never to have children as but one example.

 

[chevalier]

Prenupts may imply exclusion of indissolubility by allowing divorce. Stipulations not to have children would fall under a similar category. But it’s not the prenupt which makes marriage invalid. A prenupt is merely evidence. Marriage is made invalid by an impediment or a defect of consent. The latter come from insufficient knowledge, lack of ability to undertake the necessary obligations, etc. A typical, “in the event of divorce,” suggests exclusion of indissolubility, although it may mean as much as, “if one of the spouses abandons the other and obtains a civil divorce, then…”, which implies lack of trust rather than any will to divorce should the marriage not work out.

CONDITIONED CONSENT (canon 1102): There are several types of conditioned consent. A condition regarding the future invalidates the marriage. Thus, for example, exchanging vows with the condition that the other party finish medical school and work as a doctor invalidates the consent. A condition regarding the past or present may or may not invalidate depending on the existence of the matter which is the subject of the condition. An example might be: “I marry you under the condition that you have the capacity to have children.”

From: archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/consent.html

In some cases, I would worry about simulation on the basis of what’s being withheld.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Some states have laws that property brought into a marriage reverts to its owner upon divorce, and only property earned DURING the marriage is up for grabs in a divorce. And inheritances are often treated as separate property as well.

At least it was in my case in my state.

 

[chevalier]

Inheritance is by no means the same everywhere. As you say, it differs considerably state-to-state within the US, then think about other common law / equity systems, and what about the post-Roman or Germanic systems from continental Europe. The differences are vast and generalisations are very, very risky.

 

[cameron_lansing]

" prenups invalidate a marriage, don’t they?"

(I only speak to the canonical question and not the other issues. Anyone presented with a prenup to sign before marriage is urgently advised to discuss the matter with the priest preparing the couple for marriage to discuss all the issues— canonical, civil and others raised in the thread.)

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Indissolubility is an essential property of marriage (c. 1056) . Sometimes we call it permanence. Valid marital consent can be undermined if there is a positive act of the will to exclude indissolubility at the time of consent. Essentially a person who does this really intends to enter into a marriage that he or she judges to be dissoluble at will (c. 1101§2), and then we would have invalidity. But the internal consent to marriage is presumed by the law when it is externally given in words or signs of the ceremony (c. 1101§1). Invalidity would have to be proven in a tribunal.

The particular document and the disposition of the parties would have to be examined in addition to the testimonies of the case. The mere provision for the distribution of property upon the contingency of civil divorce would not necessarily exclude valid consent. Those other factors would need to be examined in the concrete.

That a person might entertain the speculative possibility of divorce does not necessarily create a positive act of the will to exclude indissolubility. Possibilities, hypotheses, and speculations about the future are evaluated in the intellect. But marital consent pertains to the will, since it is an act of the will that establishes marriage (canon 1057). As you might expect, there are jurisprudential standards for examining if a positive act of the will to exclude marriage or one of its properties or elements existed at the time of consent. What exactly did the person intend? It is always difficult to establish this.

(The matter of the conditional consent mentioned in canon 1102 may or may not be relevant in any given case. One would have to look at details. In some ways canons 1101 and 1102 can draw very close to each other and the distinctions are nuanced. Convalidation raises other issues since a new act of the will has to be given by both parties. If one or either believed that the prior ceremony led to a valid marriage, they wouldn’t give any new consent at the convalidation. But it could also be a maybe yes and maybe no situation as above.)

The pope addresses the question of indissolubility in one of his allocutions to the Rota. It is a nice read. See what he says about “positive act of the will” at n. 4.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000121_rota-romana_en.html

Now certainly no one can enter marriage believing or intending that it be a temporary or contingent arrangement or that it be just another human contract. God instituted it to be a permanent and life giving covenant regulated by God’s law and not ours. A loss of the sense of permanence and the divine in marriage is one of the plagues of our age.

 

[StephanieC]

Just to make things even more interesting, here are some more sources re: prenups:

CAF’s AAA forum says:

Canon Law (CIC) generally does not allow prenuptial agreements. “A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly” (CIC 1102 §1). The Canon Law Letter & Spirit explains that a condition may be defined as ”a stipulation by which an agreement is made contingent upon the verification or fulfillment of some circumstance or event which is not yet certain” and goes on to state that “any condition concerning the future attached to matrimonial consent renders marriage invalid.”

You may want to discuss with your pastor or a canon law attorney other ways to provide for the interests of your children that would not invalidate your marriage.

EWTN’s "Ask the Expert", who says thusly:

Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 09-16-2006: It very well might affect the validty of the marriage, depending upon the intentions of the parties entering the agreement. If I were judging a case of marital nullity and the parties stated that they had a prenuptial agreement, I would certainly want to see a copy of it. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the marriage is automatically invalid. I have heard of parties entering a second marriage later in life (after the first spouses have died) who had a prenuptial agreement only to satisfy their adult children. The couple themselves had no intentions against perpetuity or possibly invalidating conditions on the marriage.

Sounds to me like he’s saying it’s a “red flag” in judging a case for annulments, kinda what CameronLansing is saying above.

 

[puzzleannie]

ThisMy neighbor is less than 30 years old, not married, yet probably is worth > million $. He has a live in girlfriend (financee’), yet he won’t marry her unless she signs a pre-nup. So if she disagrees, she either remains shacked up and unmarried (Friends w/ benefits) or she moves on…

or she files for palimony aftet they split up and gets her hands on a handful of his money.

 

[thechrismyster]

just my opinion.

i’d never have DREAMED of getting a prenup drawn up.

It shows lack of confidence in one’s ability to make a decision and stick with it.

 

[TraderTif]

Good grief, I had no idea that prenups were such a big deal!!

Hypothetical situation: A man is seriously disabled, but has an sizeable inheritance, which he will need to live on for the rest of his life. He can’t get a prenup to protect himself, in case his future wife abandons him and takes half of the money?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Good grief, I had no idea that prenups were such a big deal!!

Hypothetical situation: A man is seriously disabled, but has an sizeable inheritance, which he will need to live on for the rest of his life. He can’t get a prenup to protect himself, in case his future wife abandons him and takes half of the money?

Again, that’s my point earlier in the thread. It’s not that someone doesn’t have trust in or respect of the sacrament. It’s just sometimes greed (and or love) may cloud one’s judgement. I believe that women initiate 80% of divorces in the US (read into that stat as much as you like), and with a divorce rate of 50%, I don’t like my odds - so the thought of a prenup has crossed my mind.

 

[rayne89]

Good grief, I had no idea that prenups were such a big deal!!

Hypothetical situation: A man is seriously disabled, but has an sizeable inheritance, which he will need to live on for the rest of his life. He can’t get a prenup to protect himself, in case his future wife abandons him and takes half of the money?

Correct.

 

[rayne89]

I would never, never marry anyone who wanted me to sign a prenup. A person who is already thinking of divorce before we’re even married is not someone I want to be married to.

And yes in most cases I believe it does invalidate the marriage. Marriage is not a contract in the eyes of the Church it is a covenant and there is a big difference.

 

[OldAgeGuru]

Again, that’s my point earlier in the thread. It’s not that someone doesn’t have trust in or respect of the sacrament. It’s just sometimes greed (and or love) may cloud one’s judgement. I believe that women initiate 80% of divorces in the US (read into that stat as much as you like), and with a divorce rate of 50%, I don’t like my odds - so the thought of a prenup has crossed my mind.

My fiance and I are signing one. Both of us were left large trusts by grandparents, and the money is individualy ours. Anything we happen to purchase with that money will become communal property, to be split evenly.

I don’t necessarily think prenups are bad, or that having one means you don’t trust the other person. I guess to me, signing a prenup is like getting a mammagram. I hope and trust God to not give me cancer, but I want to make sure that I have taken steps to make sure I don’t have or get it either.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

My fiance and I are signing one. Both of us were left large trusts by grandparents, and the money is individualy ours. Anything we happen to purchase with that money will become communal property, to be split evenly.

I don’t necessarily think prenups are bad, or that having one means you don’t trust the other person. I guess to me, signing a prenup is like getting a mammagram. I hope and trust God to not give me cancer, but I want to make sure that I have taken steps to make sure I don’t have or get it either.

Another way of looking at it, that may clarify our position… It’s taking the “profilt motive” out of divorce - meaning that you will marry for money, or will just give up on the marriage at some later point, because you’ll get half.

I think the root problem is that people don’t take marriage seriously in the first place, that’s why people feel a need to get prenups (in order to protect themselves from themselves and others).

 

[FLCathMom]

I believe that women initiate 80% of divorces in the US (read into that stat as much as you like), and with a divorce rate of 50%, I don’t like my odds - so the thought of a prenup has crossed my mind.

Fact: Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

Copyright 2002 by David Popenoe, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.

When you get married, you become “one flesh” with your spouse.You are no longer two people, but one. You have to be able to trust completely… that means putting yourself out there to possibly be ripped off. Remember, God’s ways seem like foolishness to the world.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Fact: Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women. One recent study found that many of the reasons for this have to do with the nature of our divorce laws. For example, in most states women have a good chance of receiving custody of their children. Because women more strongly want to keep their children with them, in states where there is a presumption of shared custody with the husband the percentage of women who initiate divorces is much lower. Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.

Copyright 2002 by David Popenoe, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.

When you get married, you become “one flesh” with your spouse.You are no longer two people, but one. You have to be able to trust completely… that means putting yourself out there to possibly be ripped off. Remember, God’s ways seem like foolishness to the world.

Thanks for the stats.

I have worked very hard (with the help of God) to get where I am today. I would like to think that I would make the right choice when it comes time to get married.

However, in a society where people may not take marriage seriously as they once did, how do I protect my investment and my interests for my future family? Where does “being practical” trump “blind faith?” (Not trying to start a flame war, it’s a question I’ve been mulling over for quite awhile though)