Religious Marriage w/o Legal Contract

[enterthenewage]

There are a decent number of men who say that marriage is not worth it (from a FINANCIAL perspective) due to the unfair divorce systems found in most Western nations. Some men have gone as far to say that they will not get legally married to any woman at any point in their lifetime, unless the laws change drastically. We all know the Catholic Church tells people they should get married before having sex. However, people who think that the legal marital contract is unfair towards men have a lot of valid points which should not be overlooked or dismissed by the church. Dismissing complaints of unfairness would inevitably alienate some people and make them think the Church is looking the other way. All this being said, why doesn’t the Church propose some sort of middle ground for people who want to follow the Church’s social teachings but don’t want to an unfair legal contract (marriage contract). My idea would be for people to have a religious ceremony without the secular contract They could take all of the vows of the sacrament without getting an unfair secular government involved in the relationship. What part of this proposal would be unacceptable?

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - I already know someone will bring this up. However, not all places recognize common law marriage. For this thread, lets assume the couple in question lives in a region that does not recognize marriages unless the two people sign the legal contract.

 

[Corki]

What part of this proposal would be unacceptable?

It depends on the laws of the country. I can only speak to the US. In the US, a priest is an agent of the state when he officiates a wedding. The state gives him the power to sign marriage certificates and the couple does not need to get a separate civil marriage. If a priest was found to be officiating marriages and not including the civil portion, he could lose his ability to officiate weddings in that state.

Depending on the situation, it could also be an attempt to defraud the government. A priest would not cooperate with that.

 

[dee_burk]

There are a decent number of men who say that marriage is not worth it (from a FINANCIAL perspective) due to the unfair divorce systems found in most Western nations. Some men have gone as far to say that they will not get legally married to any woman at any point in their lifetime, unless the laws change drastically. We all know the Catholic Church tells people they should get married before having sex. However, people who think that the legal marital contract is unfair towards men have a lot of valid points which should not be overlooked or dismissed by the church. Dismissing complaints of unfairness would inevitably alienate some people and make them think the Church is looking the other way. All this being said, why doesn’t the Church propose some sort of middle ground for people who want to follow the Church’s social teachings but don’t want to an unfair legal contract (marriage contract). My idea would be for people to have a religious ceremony without the secular contract They could take all of the vows of the sacrament without getting an unfair secular government involved in the relationship. What part of this proposal would be unacceptable?

]There are a decent number of men who say that marriage is not worth it (from a FINANCIAL perspective) due to the unfair divorce systems found in most Western nations. So a decent number of men are thinking about divorce before the bond of marriage? I see a slight flaw here. What about a prenup?

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - I already know someone will bring this up. However, not all places recognize common law marriage. For this thread, lets assume the couple in question lives in a region that does not recognize marriages unless the two people sign the legal contract.

 

[dee_burk]

so a decent number of men think of divorce before the bond of marriage? i see a flaw on this whether legal or sacramental…

But, i 'll play along, what about a pre-nup?

 

[enterthenewage]

It depends on the laws of the country. I can only speak to the US. In the US, a priest is an agent of the state when he officiates a wedding. The state gives him the power to sign marriage certificates and the couple does not need to get a separate civil marriage. If a priest was found to be officiating marriages and not including the civil portion, he could lose his ability to officiate weddings in that state.

Depending on the situation, it could also be an attempt to defraud the government. A priest would not cooperate with that.

Really? Even if the couple does not want the legal contract the priest would still get in trouble? I never heard of this before (not saying you are wrong, just that I never heard of it).

so a decent number of men think of divorce before the bond of marriage? i see a flaw on this whether legal or sacramental…

But, i 'll play along, what about a pre-nup?

Yes, a decent number of men do think of divorce before marriage, just as a decent number of people think about about much it will cost to repair a house they are buying or how well a car performed in safety tests. If a person gets into their car and wears a seat-belt on, does that make them paranoid for thinking they might get into an accident? I don’t understand why you would see this line of thinking as flawed. I think it’s very rational to think of all possible outcomes when making important, risky decisions.

And prenups would not work well because they are very limited in what they can do. You can’t put anything that goes against public policy in a prenup, hence you still have to play by the government’s rules when you sign the marital contract. The only way to play by your own rules is to not sign the government’s contract.

 

[Thorns]

so a decent number of men think of divorce before the bond of marriage? i see a flaw on this whether legal or sacramental…

But, i 'll play along, what about a pre-nup?

I dont think a man is planning to divorce, but it seems he would be concerned about protecting himself in case the other person has bad intentions.

I believe the Church is against prenups.

 

[chefmomster2]

I know that what you describe is sometimes true, but the system has improved dramatically. No longer is gender the deciding factor. Courts look at who was working, how much each contributed monetarily, etc. Alimony is often not given at all. Sometimes the former wife actually pays since she was the principal bread winner.

Beyond that is a more important question. Why should the Church compromise its Christian values because the men you describe are unwilling to take a financial risk? You seem to be suggesting that people are unable to persevere in chastity and men are unwilling to marry, so the Church should allow something less?

Why?

I haven’t heard such a lame idea since, “if you loved me, you would.” became the catchphrase for men who wanted no strings attached sex. The “men” you cite are saying, “I love you honey, but you know it’s tough on men these days. I need sex and if you loved me you would.”

Why any woman in her right mind finds it acceptable to live with a man, make a home with a man and raise his children without benefit of the safeguards marriage provides is beyond me! She deserves better! She deserves to have someone morally and legally obligated to her and vice versa. She deserves someone who believes in her, believes in their love and believes in their future enough to make the commitment. Their children have a right to a decent life with enough steady food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and other necessities whether mom and dad continue working at keeping their marriage a good and holy one or they don’t.

What you suggest is that the Church cave in on several of its important doctrine on the family. They should cheapen their standards that were directed by the Holy Spirit because some man says he’s got to have sex, but he can’t get married so the church should make that okay for him?

Yes, it is hard. Yes it is scary. But so what?

CATHOLICISM IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART!

 

[edwest2]

so a decent number of men think of divorce before the bond of marriage? i see a flaw on this whether legal or sacramental…

But, i 'll play along, what about a pre-nup?

Sadly, young people don’t know about the dating process. It was common to be attracted, earn each other’s trust and develop a friendship which usually led to courtship, and meeting her parents and you meeting hers. Families beget families. Pre-nuptial agreements assume you can’t trust each other and are not getting to really know each other BEFORE the ceremony. This means you are both automatically going about it the wrong way.

You want a lifelong friend and a wife? Find out what both of you expect out of marriage BEFORE the ceremony. Talk to her parents. Plan.

Peace,
Ed

 

[enterthenewage]

I know that what you describe is sometimes true, but the system has improved dramatically. No longer is gender the deciding factor. Courts look at who was working, how much each contributed monetarily, etc. Alimony is often not given at all. Sometimes the former wife actually pays since she was the principal bread winner.

Beyond that is a more important question. Why should the Church compromise its Christian values because the men you describe are unwilling to take a financial risk? You seem to be suggesting that people are unable to persevere in chastity and men are unwilling to marry, so the Church should allow something less?

Why?

I haven’t heard such a lame idea since, “if you loved me, you would.” became the catchphrase for men who wanted no strings attached sex. The “men” you cite are saying, “I love you honey, but you know it’s tough on men these days. I need sex and if you loved me you would.”

Why any woman in her right mind finds it acceptable to live with a man, make a home with a man and raise his children without benefit of the safeguards marriage provides is beyond me! She deserves better! She deserves to have someone morally and legally obligated to her and vice versa. She deserves someone who believes in her, believes in their love and believes in their future enough to make the commitment. Their children have a right to a decent life with enough steady food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and other necessities whether mom and dad continue working at keeping their marriage a good and holy one or they don’t.

What you suggest is that the Church cave in on several of its important doctrine on the family. They should cheapen their standards that were directed by the Holy Spirit because some man says he’s got to have sex, but he can’t get married so the church should make that okay for him?

Yes, it is hard. Yes it is scary. But so what?

CATHOLICISM IS NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART!

I don’t know where you are getting your information from about the courts being fair, but I will disagree with you until the day I die. Let me use my parents for example. They began the divorce process in 2008. 2008 is not 3 decades ago! Long story short, the divorce was completely unfair for him and he got screwed over badly. My mother, who I have cut off all contact with permanently, got alimony, child support, and a bunch of other stuff that she never worked for. What you are saying about the system being better is just plain wrong. There are many men who will agree with me to the core.

How would it be a compromise of christian values if both people still take vows before God? For most of biblical history, godly people did not have live in a state that issued marriage licenses, yet they still lived within the boundaries of God’s laws. Why should now be any different? Why is it all of a sudden a sin to have a marriage without a secular piece?

Any why any guy in his right mind would think the marriage contract is fair is absolutely insane. Why is it the guy’s job to provide welfare checks to his ex-wife after they are already apart? You are already bringing children into the mix, when the reality is that even childless marriages results in plenty of unfair settlements. And regarding child support, there are plenty of instances of absurd child support orders. Your mentality is exactly the reason why a lot of guys are driven away, this idea that guys are an untapped resource that is there to benefit women.

What I’m saying is that the church should abandon this unfounded need for secular approval. As I said before, for most of biblical history, God’s people did not get approval contracts from the state to justify their relationship.

Sadly, young people don’t know about the dating process. It was common to be attracted, earn each other’s trust and develop a friendship which usually led to courtship, and meeting her parents and you meeting hers. Families beget families. Pre-nuptial agreements assume you can’t trust each other and are not getting to really know each other BEFORE the ceremony. This means you are both automatically going about it the wrong way.

You want a lifelong friend and a wife? Find out what both of you expect out of marriage BEFORE the ceremony. Talk to her parents. Plan.

The problem with the course of action you are advising is that there is no legal ground for the man to fall back on. Both sides can “find out what both of you expect”, but a common pleas judge will not care if the woman broke her promises. Legal contracts are legal contracts my friend. She can still take the guy to the cleaners and he will be left with very little if she wants to make the divorce nasty for him.

 

[Xantippe]

chefmomster2 said:

“Why any woman in her right mind finds it acceptable to live with a man, make a home with a man and raise his children without benefit of the safeguards marriage provides is beyond me! She deserves better! She deserves to have someone morally and legally obligated to her and vice versa.”

Exactly.

Also, for a Catholic, the financial bonds of civil marriage and parenthood are really one’s least concern. The biggest issue with marriage is that a valid marriage is lifelong and precludes divorce with remarriage–i.e. in the case of divorce one could be facing decades alone.

Seen in that light, a little money down the drain is nothing.

If one isn’t ready to deal with the burdens of civil marriage, one certainly isn’t ready to deal with Catholic marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

enterthenewage said:

“And regarding child support, there are plenty of instances of absurd child support orders.”

And yet, divorced women tend to struggle financially.

Odd, that.

“How would it be a compromise of christian values if both people still take vows before God? For most of biblical history, godly people did not have live in a state that issued marriage licenses, yet they still lived within the boundaries of God’s laws. Why should now be any different? Why is it all of a sudden a sin to have a marriage without a secular piece?”

If the state did not do marriage licenses, there would still be private legal agreements upon marriage regarding property, as in fact there were in the past.

If you read a little 19th century literature, you’ll notice that there is a lot of talk of marriage settlements.

Here’s a website that talks about that phenomenon:

familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Marriage_Settlements_in_England_and_Wales

“In the early Middle Ages a marriage for the majority of property owning people, did not imply a ceremony in church, but a private contract or property exchange that also provided some financial protection to the woman in case her husband died or abandoned her.”

"Prior to the Married Woman’s Property Act in 1882, under common law a woman’s legal identity during her marriage was subsumed into that of her husband. That coverage, called her “coverture”, meant that whatever she brought into marriage became his. In theory she received in return her maintenance, but she had no legal remedy if her husband failed to meet his obligations. However, in the propertied classes any of her unexpired leases would revert to her if she survived him and he could only dispose of her freeholds with her permission. Whilst married she could not sue or be sued (except in conjunction with her husband) and her only consolation was that if she ran up debts that her husband could not pay, it was he and not she who went to the debtors’ prison.

“It is no wonder that parents in quite ordinary families, if they lived long enough, attempted to safeguard their daughters’ property rights and futures by written bonds or settlements, something which many widows also did prior to a second marriage. It is a mistake, therefore, to think that before the 1882 Act the position of all married women was entirely circumscribed and that all were completely dependent on the goodwill of their husbands.”

There’s further discussion about the details all of this that I haven’t read, but apparently, in the propertied classes, a lot of energy and thought went into this.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

I don’t believe a person who would rather risk their spouse and children going without in the event of their illness or death is ready to contract any type of marriage, legally or otherwise.

 

[Xantippe]

Come to think of it, the custom of legal provision for the wife is very, very old.

Here is an explanation of the ancient Jewish tradition of the Ketubah.

“The rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into the ketubah as a protection for the wife. It acted as a replacement of the biblical mohar– the price paid by the groom to the bride, or her parents, for the marriage (i.e., the bride price). The ketubah became a mechanism whereby the amount due to the wife (the bride-price) came to be paid in the event of the cessation of marriage, either by the death of the husband or divorce.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah

 

[enterthenewage]

Xantippe, you are conveniently trying to avoid the issue being discussed in this thread by simply dodging the topic of discussion and saying that people should not be married if they don’t want to accept that level of risk. Does that mean people who wear seat-belts should not be using cars? Back in biblical times, they may have had private agreements between people, but those private agreements are a far cry from the cancerous legal system in place in Western countries. People did not have to worry about spending a fortune on attorneys in that time.

The risk of spending the rest of your life alone never goes away. But it’s better to spend your life alone with some money in your pocket than no money at all. A split will take place if the two people don’t want to be together.

A little money down the drain? Lol most people would either laugh at that statement. The fortunes people lose in divorces are astounding. And some men already declared they would rather never marry at all than lose that type of money. If the relationship ends, but parties should be responsible for pulling their own weight. If that means the financially weaker party has to spend a few years in a homeless shelter before getting it together, than so be it.

 

[enterthenewage]

I don’t believe a person who would rather risk their spouse and children going without in the event of their illness or death is ready to contract any type of marriage, legally or otherwise.

The threshold for marital readiness is not the issue being discussed in this thread. The issue being discussed is making a religious covenant without a legal contract.

Come to think of it, the custom of legal provision for the wife is very, very old.

Here is an explanation of the ancient Jewish tradition of the Ketubah.

“The rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into the ketubah as a protection for the wife. It acted as a replacement of the biblical mohar– the price paid by the groom to the bride, or her parents, for the marriage (i.e., the bride price). The ketubah became a mechanism whereby the amount due to the wife (the bride-price) came to be paid in the event of the cessation of marriage, either by the death of the husband or divorce.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah

What you are describing is repayment of a dowry, not even close to what we have nowadays. Dowry repayment was fair, because it operated on the idea that what you brought into the marriage is what you take with you. This is not an ongoing welfare entitlement that the courts force onto men.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

@enterthenewage; You are too jaded (at least right now) to be married to anyone, please take that for what it is.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Or you’re a troll…

 

[Xantippe]

Miss Felicity said,

“Or you’re a troll.”

I’m starting to lean in that direction because of the stuff about it being fair to put the poorer spouse in a homeless shelter.

 

[His_helpmeet]

A PP stated that the question here is not about intent to divorce, it is about the ability of the Church to sanction marriages without there being a legal contract - on the basis that the man does not want to get “screwed over” if he divorces.

Here’s the thing: in this particular case you CANNOT separate the two. Here’s why.

The Catholic Church teaches that a valid marriage between two baptized people is valid and, therefore, binding, until the death of both parties. (Note that one cannot commit conjugicide, or the murder of a spouse, in order to marry another spouse - this renders the second marriage invalid.) It is a requirement at a Catholic wedding that the couple answer “yes” when they are asked whether they intend to live as husband and wife for the rest of their lives. Divorce MUST be an option that is NOT on the table at this point. If a person married with the intent that they could get a divorce if it didn’t work out, the marriage could later be found to be invalid because the person did not intend to be married until death. Now, the Church does NOT teach that divorce must never occur. Obviously there are some tragic situations that necessitate a divorce, such as abuse or abandonment. However, one should not enter a marriage intending that these things WILL occur - otherwise, again, the marriage is invalid.

When you are married in the Church, you come together as ONE flesh. Marriage is intended for the good of the spouses and to provide a stable foundation for the raising of children. If you refuse to have a legal contract on the basis of “well, if we get divorced she gets half of everything and I don’t want that”, can you REALLY and TRULY say that you have entered marriage with the intent of the good of your spouse? This is also why the Church does not allow prenups. They are created with the intention of a “just in case” clause. This is VERY different from wearing your seatbelt. When you’re in a car, you obviously don’t know what to expect on the road. God forbid that you should get in an accident even from something like slipping on black ice. However, when you marry someone, it is generally assumed that you have spent enough time with that person to KNOW that getting married is a good idea. One priest recommended that you date someone for at least a year, because it’s pretty hard to hide most things that long. By contrast, when you’re driving your car you don’t know the other drivers and you don’t know what kind of state they’re in to drive, plus you don’t know that maybe a couch just fell off a truck and you’re going to end up plowing right into it (or something). Just a few months ago I had a deer run straight across the road and into my car. I didn’t know the deer was there. But when I married my husband, we KNEW divorce was not an option that was on the table. (Ironically I am his second wife, but he was abandoned by his first wife and the marriage was declared invalid.) We decided, from the get-go, that any money brought into the family was the family’s money. We have a joint account, and we each have our own account for the SOLE purpose of having money available should something happen to one of us, in case they freeze the joint account (sometimes the bank will do this in the event of the death of one person). Coming into things, I had more money than he did, and he had a house he’d bought. But we decided that “what’s mine is yours” because we felt that, as one flesh, any monies/assets brought into the household were for the good of the family and became the joint property of BOTH spouses. If someone wants to turn around and say, “Well, you’re not getting any of MY stuff” I have to question if that person really knows what it means to be married. Does that person understand that the two of you are to become one flesh? Does he understand that his wife SHOULD be entitled to half of what he has because she is considered to be half of one person?

 

[enterthenewage]

@enterthenewage; You are too jaded (at least right now) to be married to anyone, please take that for what it is.

Or you’re a troll…

Your inability to stay on topic is scary. Seriously, if you want to talk about what it takes to be ready to be married according to the catholic standard, start your own discussion.

But to respond, looking out for your own well-being is not being jaded. It’s called being rational and knowing how to balance risk/reward. If I’m so “jaded”, then why is it that women mostly get custody of children and there are so many men saying the same thing I am?

Before you call someone a troll, at least know what a troll is. It’s a person who makes inflammatory statements just for kicks. I am not doing anything for kicks. I am speaking my mind and how I truly feel and I have facts to back it up. That is not the same as a troll.

Miss Felicity said,

“Or you’re a troll.”

I’m starting to lean in that direction because of the stuff about it being fair to put the poorer spouse in a homeless shelter.

Same statement goes for you. If you are going to dodge the points being made in the thread, why are you even responding? Whatever I say on this forum is how I truly feel, not to make people mad. I made that statement to show my view that under no circumstances should a man be turned into a one person welfare agency for his ex-wife. If women knew they would be entirely on their own once a relationship ends, I guarantee you there would be fewer marriages and fewer divorces.

 

[Thorns]

Sadly, young people don’t know about the dating process. It was common to be attracted, earn each other’s trust and develop a friendship which usually led to courtship, and meeting her parents and you meeting hers. Families beget families. Pre-nuptial agreements assume you can’t trust each other and are not getting to really know each other BEFORE the ceremony. This means you are both automatically going about it the wrong way.

You want a lifelong friend and a wife? Find out what both of you expect out of marriage BEFORE the ceremony. Talk to her parents. Plan.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I completely agree and what you describe is ideal.

However, our world is not ideal sadly. People are expert scammers and con artists, some are so good you’d be comfortable and convinced you knew them.

The thing about love is that it usually nullifies logic and reasoning. People know that and they take advantage.

How does one take precautions the Catholic way?