Why is it wrong to sign a prenup before marriage?

[CatherineM]

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

[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 August 16, 2017 by Anomaly

[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?

[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

[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.

[tinytherese]

On September 10, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Saintclare2009 said:

Jesus said in our catholic bibles that divorce shouldnt be except of course if one of the spouses commits adultery.  

The word "adultery" is not what Jesus said, although many Bible translations use this word. If Jesus intended to say adultery, he would have used the word moicheia, meaning "adultery," but instead he used the word porneia, meaning illicit or invalid.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church 

[little2add]

isn't the act of adultery in marriage illicit or invalid?

[little2add]

adultery is or was as repugnant in the time of Christ as it is today

Edited September 19, 2017 by little2add

[tinytherese]

On September 19, 2017 at 4:51 AM, little2add said:

isn't the act of adultery in marriage illicit or invalid?

It's a sin, so it's immoral. Specifically a mortal sin. It doesn't automatically invalidate a marriage though. 

[polskieserce]

On 8/26/2017 at 10:58 PM, little2add said:

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

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

It's a contract in the sense that there are 2 human parties that must both be committed to it in order for it to work.  But in our fallen world, it oftentimes doesn't work out that way.  How are you supposed to protect yourself legally and financially, if not with a prenup, in case your spouse decides that they don't want to be married to you anymore?  What about if your spouse is cheating on you or spending money like crazy?

[little2add]

Why would you marry someone you don’t trust?   

[polskieserce]

18 hours ago, little2add said:

Why would you marry someone you don’t trust?   

Why would a passenger get into a car and wear a seatbelt if he doesn't trust the driver?

[little2add]

4 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Why would a passenger get into a car and wear a seatbelt if he doesn't trust the driver?

because the passenger signed a prenup, obvious 

[polskieserce]

19 hours ago, little2add said:

because the passenger signed a prenup, obvious 

Do you actually have a valid response to my question?

[little2add]

what valid question?

[polskieserce]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:45 PM, little2add said:

what valid question?

The question of how to protect yourself financially if the other person decides they don't want to do it anymore.  There are many horror stories you will hear about how people lost almost everything they had during a divorce.  This is not a minor issue that the Church can keep brushing off to the side.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, polskieserce said:

how people lost almost everything they had during a divorce

 I would be more concerned about loosing the love of your spouse.  Money is not everything

don't put money before love

 

[polskieserce]

8 hours ago, little2add said:

 I would be more concerned about loosing the love of your spouse.  Money is not everything

don't put money before love

You still aren't answering my question.  How are people supposed to protect themselves financially if the marriage goes south?  HALF of all marriages end in divorce.  Do you really think half of the population thought their marriage would end in divorce?  This is exactly the type of ignorant, foolish, delusional, "it will never happen to me" kind of thinking that plagues the human race and the Catholic Church.

As far as I can see, prenups are one of the few ways you can somewhat protect yourself legally/financially from a nasty divorce.

Love matters a lot, but so does money.  Your sentiment that we should abandon all financial and legal considerations when love is involved is foolish.

[little2add]

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

Your sentiment that we should abandon all financial and legal considerations when love is involved is foolish.

call me a fool, then

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

You still aren't answering my question.

your question is foolish.  Marriage is a selfless agreement, if you can not abandon you own needs for the sake of your partner's well being then the union is doomed to fail.  

Edited October 11, 2017 by little2add

[little2add]

marriage is not a 50-50 agreement, it is a 100-100 agreement (1+1=1)