Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polskieserce

Why is it wrong to sign a prenup before marriage?

Recommended Posts

White Knight
2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Very strong evidence in favour of nullity. Not grounds in itself. Based on my understanding.

I am not a cannon lawyer by any means, so you are probably right about  it, again I dont know I'm not a cannon lawyer but from a basic educational standpoint of "some knowledge" it looks very clear for grounds of annulment. Again I humbly ask for some cannon law reference to help bring clarity to this already "Almost certain" outcome, to help my understanding if I am wrong.

God Bless You 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

I was going to study cannon law, but the issues were too charged.  I feared if things got out of hand, clients may become explosive and blow up in my face. 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat
49 minutes ago, White Knight said:

I am not a cannon lawyer by any means, so you are probably right about  it, again I dont know I'm not a cannon lawyer but from a basic educational standpoint of "some knowledge" it looks very clear for grounds of annulment. Again I humbly ask for some cannon law reference to help bring clarity to this already "Almost certain" outcome, to help my understanding if I am wrong.

God Bless You 

Well like we established, a contract in and of itself is not necessarily wrong. This one is, because it penalizes an essential aspect of marriage. But the grounds for nullity which I agree would be very open and shut, is that the couple was not open to life. Not that they signed a contact to that effect. The contract is strong evidence of the impediment, but not the impediment itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder

Further, if they were to alter the contract or otherwise change their consent after the fact, this presumably invalid marriage would then become valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteLily

Basically a prenup is an assumption that you will eventually get divorced. My hubby and I share everything money related. We hold each other accountable. Sorry, but we are in it for the long haul, or until one of us drops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anastasia (L&T)
On 6/17/2016 at 6:15 PM, tinytherese said:

It strikes me as a sign that you don't trust your future spouse, in which case you shouldn't marry them.

A prenup can also be a company policy that means that you ask your spouse/one of the owners to give up years of building up his way of providing for his family to not appease others for another's mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82
On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:15 PM, White Knight said:

I am not a cannon lawyer by any means, so you are probably right about  it, again I dont know I'm not a cannon lawyer but from a basic educational standpoint of "some knowledge" it looks very clear for grounds of annulment. Again I humbly ask for some cannon law reference to help bring clarity to this already "Almost certain" outcome, to help my understanding if I am wrong.

God Bless You 

 

What do laws regarding armaments have to do with prenups?  Are we talking about who will divide up the armies  in case a royal marriage dissolves, like the one that united Poland and Lithuania or Spain and Austria?

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:39 PM, Anomaly said:

I was going to study cannon law, but the issues were too charged.  I feared if things got out of hand, clients may become explosive and blow up in my face. 

Good puns that illustrate my point.

Edited by Norseman82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GKStudent

Let's see, Pre-Supposing a divorce before marriage in the nature of Covenantal Love, Marriage, Relationship and Family before getting married, already spells for intended disaster. But to be fair, let me try reasoning upon Father Groeschel's famous (err...maybe infamous) peanut butter on bread test. So suppose you are going to plan throwing bread with peanut butter over your shoulder behind you. Well, you can either have cleaning supplies ready and be a person in preparation for the worst outcome. Or, you can be the person that is the optimist, it will be fine and will work. If you prepared for the potential outcome of disaster with cleaning supplies - the peanut butter facing down on the floor. Then you were ready to clean it up. Which in truth is being responsible. But if the peanut butter landed face up, then you shrug your shoulders and maybe even shocked it succeeded - a joyful outcome. But if you were unprepared, and say the peanut butter landed on the floor - the optimist. You will be devastated and possibly angry it didn't turn out the way you intended.

As for Pre-Nups, maybe this has much more to do with Murphy's law. Which communists and socialist thinkers subscribe to. But, then on the other hand, there is wisdom: in one being prepared. The real problem with pre-nup diving up property for the potential outcome of a divorce is actually a skeptical mindset. In fact, a shallow and lazy one to be honest. And of course falls into the hands of nay sayers on the Institution of Marriage. I'd rather agree with the nay sayers than Murphy's law constituents. If you are getting married, and presume you might have a fall out running the course of marriage, then you need to prepare for engagement in a life giving relationship. The Pre-Nup should be having a preparation plan when things are tough. Whether they are financial, emotional, physical, or psychological. Or just simply losing one's touch with love of their spouse. Love is essential in marriage. The bedrock and foundation to a family. Most, if not all, married couples have children. And that is key to those children. Somehow the silly selfish notion of Pre-Nup actually forgets the stable relationship required for children. No amount of "diving up property" fixes that during a divorce. Love permeates the foundation of a relationship. When you say: In sickness and in health, til death do us part. I think divorce isn't in the your marital covenantal vows to each other. In fact, in all truth, divorce violates your vows. Somehow divorce couples shouldn't really be able to take an oath, in a drastic observation. For if you violated your marital covenantal vows before the Church and witnesses, how are to be believed in taking any oath? We all fail and fall. So people may lose touch with their vows. And lose sight of life giving promises which were in an oath before God and man (i.e. human witnesses.)

What people who get married need is a good pre-nup on what to do in cases your spouse is sick, and maybe a Health Savings Account. Or when you have children and if some burdens may come up which could sterilize a once before happy marriage. Not because children are the reason. But because of financial distress. Well there's NFP. In fact a pre-nup should be preparation when things go wrong in marriage, what to do about it. A divorce is not what you do about marriage. It's what you don't do about it. For by divorce you just no longer stay in marriage. Thus you save nothing. Maybe the Church has figured this out already and has a good set of resources - even in the form of an agreement that mirrors the covenantal foundation of marriage not espousing a divorce at all. Legal separation is the view of an indissoluble marriage established by the Church as no more than a contract by the State. And yet, if the State defines marriage as that, then oaths taken in office or produced in a court house are truly dissoluble. Sorry, the State can't have it both ways. It would then be an injustice performed by the law of the land to do so. The State needs to be held accountable and held to it's own laws. People who exercise justice are not greater than the laws they exercise. They must humbly serve the same. Or they are criminal. But again, back to pre-nups - before my interesting entourage of a tangent. Pre-nup's need a better offer from the Church. That is to listen to prudence and wisdom on the foresight and matter that something could and can go wrong. Thus give Murphy's law some benefit of wisdom. However, the choices made as to what that pre-nup entails needs to be adjusted and put into respect to marriage as an indissoluble institution. Thus respective as the Church see's it. Nay, as God see's it through which the lens of the Church describes. So something like HSA, NFP, trusts, wills, and taking account about every factor that distresses the institution. Even marriage counseling. And having resources set aside for as much and many instances of situation as possible. If you may require marriage counseling, set an account for that. If you consider having children, with NFP to help, and maybe a spouse has to stay home to take care of the child until he or she is ready for K-12 school. Or maybe even homeschooling being planned in a pre-nub. In fact pre-nups should be agreements on basic living - called home economics of a relationship!

Edited by GKStudent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FancyPantsMcGovern

Pope Leo XIII said marriages are invalid when entered into with contracts for provisions if the marriage ends.

 

Just now, FancyPantsMcGovern said:

Pope Leo XIII said marriages are invalid when entered into with contracts for provisions if the marriage ends.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sponsa-Christi

Actual canon lawyer here...a prenuptial agreement by itself is not grounds for nullity.

However, one ground for nullity is "partial simulation against the good of permanence," which basically means that one of the parties was essentially lying at the wedding when they promised to enter into a marital union for life. Partial simulation can be tricky ground to prove (especially if the alleged simulator doesn't formally admit to simulating), because you need to demonstrate that, at the time of consent, the alleged simulation actually intended, by a deliberate act of the will, not to enter into a permanent union. This is as opposed to, say, a person entering marriage with the best of intentions and then succumbing to temptation years after the fact. 

So depending on the specific situation, a prenup can certainly serve as very useful evidence in a nullity trial, by potentially demonstrating that one of the parties actively viewed divorce as a realistic option he or she would be open to seriously considering. But again, it all depends on the specifics of the case at hand. Theoretically, there are a handful of scenarios where a prenup might be fully legitimate---one situation that occurs to me off the top of my head is a case where two older widows married each other, but sought a prenup to make sure that their grown children had their respective inheritances legally safeguarded.

There are other situations where a prenup might not be totally "legit," but still wouldn't indicate the nullity of a marriage. E.g., one of the parties' lawyers, accountants, or family members might have insisted on it, even while the party himself may have fully intended to honor each of his wedding vows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CatherineM

There's also the point that nullities have to be requested. If someone gets a prenup, but never divorces, then no nullity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly

Does it make a difference if the pre-nup has to do with inheritance and /or property and dependent care in case of death?  And if the couplewent to a lawyer, wouldn't their lawyer be obligated to strongly advise the requirements and terms would also be conditional and enacted in case of divorce?  

Not many people get married expecting an untimely death or divorce.  

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce
On 6/26/2016 at 8:44 PM, little2add said:

Wedding Vows

"I, ___, take you, ___, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part." 

"I, ___, take you, ___, to be my husband/wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days of my life."

 

isn't a prenup a contradiction of the terms of the marriage agreement?

Is wearing a seat-belt a sign that you don't trust the driver of the car?  All sorts of contracts have terms that dictate what happens if one party breaches the agreement.  For some strange reason, people don't bother to consider that when signing a marriage contract.

 

On 8/15/2017 at 7:43 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

Actual canon lawyer here...a prenuptial agreement by itself is not grounds for nullity.

However, one ground for nullity is "partial simulation against the good of permanence," which basically means that one of the parties was essentially lying at the wedding when they promised to enter into a marital union for life. Partial simulation can be tricky ground to prove (especially if the alleged simulator doesn't formally admit to simulating), because you need to demonstrate that, at the time of consent, the alleged simulation actually intended, by a deliberate act of the will, not to enter into a permanent union. This is as opposed to, say, a person entering marriage with the best of intentions and then succumbing to temptation years after the fact. 

So depending on the specific situation, a prenup can certainly serve as very useful evidence in a nullity trial, by potentially demonstrating that one of the parties actively viewed divorce as a realistic option he or she would be open to seriously considering. But again, it all depends on the specifics of the case at hand. Theoretically, there are a handful of scenarios where a prenup might be fully legitimate---one situation that occurs to me off the top of my head is a case where two older widows married each other, but sought a prenup to make sure that their grown children had their respective inheritances legally safeguarded.

There are other situations where a prenup might not be totally "legit," but still wouldn't indicate the nullity of a marriage. E.g., one of the parties' lawyers, accountants, or family members might have insisted on it, even while the party himself may have fully intended to honor each of his wedding vows. 

How is a person supposed to shield him or herself from a spouse who decides not to honor the marital contract, if not through a prenup?  This is a legitimate question, not an attempt to mock canon law.

My parents did not have a prenup when they got married and both were practicing Catholics.  However, the marriage was an absolute disaster.  They spent pretty much everything on attorneys fighting each other in court.  When they split up, I was actually happy for the first time in a while because it meant that WW3 wasn't about to break out on a regular basis.  I truly wish they had broken up a lot sooner.  The "let's stay together for the sake of the kids" argument is a joke.  Kids are not stupid.  They know a dead relationship when they see one.  Had they not physically separated, I don't even want to think about how it all would have ended.

The divorce rate is very high.  This is a known fact.  Besides accepting the other person's word with blind faith, what legal options do Catholics have to avoid ugly divorces?  If 2 Catholics sign a prenup that's SOLELY about property division in the event of divorce and waiving rights to alimony, without being told to do so by an outside party, does that automatically mean the marriage is invalid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add
On 8/25/2017 at 9:21 PM, polskieserce said:

people don't bother to consider that when signing a marriage contract.

if you consider  holy matrimony to be  business contract , your doing it wrong!  

On 8/25/2017 at 9:21 PM, polskieserce said:

If 2 Catholics sign a prenup

if two catholics marry they become one, in theory.  selflessly devoted to one another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saintclare2009

Jesus said in our catholic bibles that divorce shouldnt be except of course if one of the spouses commits adultery.  As for a prenup, i think it depends on the character of the person. We all have intuition and common sense. In the world that we live in today, we must be cautious! First off, if theres any reg flags, then common sense says " dont proceed". If we ignore god and just go with our emotions, we are headed for danger! A prenup in some cases may be a good idea. Unfortunately i see right in front of my face people getting married mainly because of the persons financial status. That may be an added bonus , but that shouldnt be the reason to marry someone, as that is shallow! It should be because you love that person and want their best interest at heart!  God will guide you, if you ask him. It may take time and alot of patience! God will never fail you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×