Prenuptial agreements

[Gorgias]

The author is encountering the typical problem that he usually encounters when writing something like this:

People who do not understand what he wrote take it upon themselves to criticize his writing, based not on what he wrote, but on their own misconceptions about what he wrote.

Catholics hear the term “pre-nuptial agreement” and automatically assume that it means what they see in the tabloids and the soap operas.

Fair enough, but isn’t it reasonable to suggest that this ‘assumed’ meaning is the meaning that’s in play 99.9% of the time that people talk about “pre-nuptial agreements?” If so, then Peters would have been well served to plainly make the distinction between the common use of the word and the ecclesiastical use of the word. After all, that’s what we do whenever there’s a Church doctrine that uses words in a way differently than people encounter them in secular settings! If we fail to make the distinction plainly, then we’re actually courting misinterpretations!

The irony of this is that the author is attempting to “assist” the discussion about pre-nups, but because his writings are being misunderstood by those who do not understand the topic itself, it seems to have muddied rather than cleared the waters.

And, it would seem, a simple paragraph of explanation, in the body of his post, would have been sufficient to prevent these misunderstandings, don’t you think?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fair enough, but isn’t it reasonable to suggest that this ‘assumed’ meaning is the meaning that’s in play 99.9% of the time that people talk about “pre-nuptial agreements?”

No. It isn’t reasonable to assume that.
The idea that it is reasonable to assume that is exactly the misconception that he’s trying to dispel.

As the author attempted to explain, there are many kinds of pre-nuptial agreements. Most couples make such agreements without even realizing that they are “pre-nuptial agreements.”
2 masters degree candidates who agree that once they’re married they will support each other emotionally and financially until they both graduate on-time are making a pre-nuptial agreement–even if it’s not committed to writing.
Engaged couples make all kinds of pre-marital agreements. In fact, from a pastoral point of view, I would be less inclined to go forward with a marriage if a couple has absolutely no pre-marital agreements because that tells me that they are not thinking about their future together.

If so, then Peters would have been well served to plainly make the distinction between the common use of the word and the ecclesiastical use of the word. After all, that’s what we do whenever there’s a Church doctrine that uses words in a way differently than people encounter them in secular settings! If we fail to make the distinction plainly, then we’re actually courting misinterpretations!

And I would agree with you, except for the fact that he did write this
One can, of course, easily imagine terms in pre-nuptial agreements that violate Church teaching on marriage. For all I know, these represent the great majority of pre-nups now in force. Such documents cannot in good conscience be signed. But one can also, I suggest, imagine terms in a pre-nup that are wholly consistent with, nay even supportive of, Church teaching on marriage.
Which is exactly the distinction you wrote about.
Again, the problem is that people are not reading his words—they’re assuming his meaning instead.

Keep in mind his target audience. Even though his blog is on the internet and available for everyone to read, he often makes comments to the effect that his writing is geared toward those who have some understanding of canon law—meaning that he does not explain every single point as if he were teaching Canon Law 101.

And, it would seem, a simple paragraph of explanation, in the body of his post, would have been sufficient to prevent these misunderstandings, don’t you think?

Which (I submit) is exactly why he did write such a simple paragraph of explanation.

When dealing with canon law, whether that’s a canonist writing about it, or a parish priest applying the canons in a real-life marriage preparation setting, we cannot make assumptions.

It’s disturbing to me when I read so many posts (not just the recent threads, but many of them over the years) when people make blanket statements along the lines of “no priest will let you get married if you have a pre-nup” because such statements are unfair generalizations. Not just unfair, but outright untrue.

 

[1ke]

People who do not understand what he wrote take it upon themselves to criticize his writing, based not on what he wrote, but on their own misconceptions about what he wrote.

It is an assumption that those critical of the article are critical because they “do not understand what he wrote”.

The irony of this is that the author is attempting to “assist” the discussion about pre-nups, but because his writings are being misunderstood by those who do not understand the topic itself, it seems to have muddied rather than cleared the waters.

Again, it is not a lack of understanding that is the genesis of criticism. It is precisely in understanding his article that I can say, as an educator who works with the “average” person out there, that it is terribly muddled and unecessarily obtuse in its explanation, lending itself unnecessarily to misquoting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding.

 

[FrDavid96]

It is an assumption that those critical of the article are critical because they “do not understand what he wrote”.

Again, it is not a lack of understanding that is the genesis of criticism. It is precisely in understanding his article that I can say, as an educator who works with the “average” person out there, that it is terribly muddled and unecessarily obtuse in its explanation, lending itself unnecessarily to misquoting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding.

OK. If you’re going to write that, then write something to support it.
When I read his post, I do not come away with those thoughts. Please explain why you do.

 

[twf]

It is an assumption that those critical of the article are critical because they “do not understand what he wrote”.

Again, it is not a lack of understanding that is the genesis of criticism. It is precisely in understanding his article that I can say, as an educator who works with the “average” person out there, that it is terribly muddled and unecessarily obtuse in its explanation, lending itself unnecessarily to misquoting, misconstruing, and misunderstanding.

I agree with Father David - such a strong criticism requires more of an explanation. Dr. Peters is a very renown and highly respected canon lawyer - are we certain that his work is intended for the average Joe with no knowledge of canon law or Catholic moral theology?

 

[Gorgias]

No. It isn’t reasonable to assume that.
The idea that it is reasonable to assume that is exactly the misconception that he’s trying to dispel.

Fair enough. The discussion here, then, suggests that he may have failed in his attempt.

And I would agree with you, except for the fact that he did write this
One can, of course, easily imagine terms in pre-nuptial agreements that violate Church teaching on marriage. For all I know, these represent the great majority of pre-nups now in force. Such documents cannot in good conscience be signed. But one can also, I suggest, imagine terms in a pre-nup that are wholly consistent with, nay even supportive of, Church teaching on marriage.
Which is exactly the distinction you wrote about.

Agreed; yet, it seems to have failed to do the job. It’s easy (and often unfair) to be a Monday-morning quarterback, but perhaps if he had simply written, “When most people think about ‘pre-nuptial agreements’, they think about arrangements that plan for distribution of assets upon divorce. This kind of pre-nup violates Church teaching on marriage and cannot in good conscience be signed. However, a pre-nup that plans for the success of the marriage, rather than its failure, is the kind of agreement that does not violate Church teaching.”

Keep in mind his target audience. Even though his blog is on the internet and available for everyone to read, he often makes comments to the effect that his writing is geared toward those who have some understanding of canon law—meaning that he does not explain every single point as if he were teaching Canon Law 101.

Yet, the misunderstanding here isn’t one of canon law; it’s an issue of clarity of expression. One does not need a degree in canon law to understand the distinction between a pre-nup that focuses on divorce and one that focuses on the marriage.

Which (I submit) is exactly why he did write such a simple paragraph of explanation.

Fair enough. I still maintain that it seems to have failed. Whether it failed because he misjudged his audience, or because he wrote in a way that could have been more easily understood, it still seems to have failed.

It’s disturbing to me when I read so many posts (not just the recent threads, but many of them over the years) when people make blanket statements along the lines of “no priest will let you get married if you have a pre-nup” because such statements are unfair generalizations. Not just unfair, but outright untrue.

No, they’re both fair and very true: it’s just that these people are simply using the term ‘pre-nup’ in the way I suggest that 99.9% of people do (as an agreement of asset distribution upon divorce).

 

[FrDavid96]

Fair enough. The discussion here, then, suggests that he may have failed in his attempt.

In that, I’ll agree with you, although I would rather say that the attempt was unsuccessful than to say that he failed—for reasons I’m about to articulate.

Agreed; yet, it seems to have failed to do the job. It’s easy (and often unfair) to be a Monday-morning quarterback, but perhaps if he had simply written, “When most people think about ‘pre-nuptial agreements’, they think about arrangements that plan for distribution of assets upon divorce. This kind of pre-nup violates Church teaching on marriage and cannot in good conscience be signed. However, a pre-nup that plans for the success of the marriage, rather than its failure, is the kind of agreement that does not violate Church teaching.”

He did not fail to do his job. You failed to read what he wrote. You first said that he “should” have written something, then when I point out that he did write it, but you missed it, you then try to put the blame back on him. It was not his failure to write it, it was your failure to read it.

Yet, the misunderstanding here isn’t one of canon law; it’s an issue of clarity of expression. One does not need a degree in canon law to understand the distinction between a pre-nup that focuses on divorce and one that focuses on the marriage.

Again, the same thing.
He was clear in what he wrote. It’s not about clarity of expression, it’s about open-mindedness in reading what he wrote, instead of assuming what he meant.

Fair enough. I still maintain that it seems to have failed. Whether it failed because he misjudged his audience, or because he wrote in a way that could have been more easily understood, it still seems to have failed.

There was a failure, yes, but no on his part.

No, they’re both fair and very true: it’s just that these people are simply using the term ‘pre-nup’ in the way I suggest that 99.9% of people do (as an agreement of asset distribution upon divorce).

You are still trying to make a point based on generalizations—there’s nothing fair or true about that kind of reasoning. Canon law doesn’t work that way, canonists don’t work that way, and pastors don’t work that way. Unfortunately, internet forums all too often do.