Let's Talk Prenups

agapecarrie · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:2592f7d5-88b1-4f69-9cc4-a3025e7c680e">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]Ok a few things I DO trust my spouse! That is not what I am saying. I am saying that other people are involved in my business/financial life besides my FH and I. And they and I wish to protect them if a divorce was to occur . No I or many others that I know go in to marriage saying when "I get divorce..." I am saying more about protection of assets. People let's not live in fantasy land people change if an unfortunate divorce was to come about and secondly people may not do things out of spite or to be mean but they may do it because they feel entitlled as they were the former spouse. I am talking legalalities.
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]

<div>The problem here is the phrase "if a divorce were to occur". The very fact that you are including this statement means you are going into the marriage with a condition, a mentality that there is an "out". This invalidates the marriage.</div><div>
</div><div>This word cannot be in your vocabulary. </div>

ElisabethJoanne · December 2011

OP, you need to talk to a compassionate Priest familiar with the Canon Law of marriage. Without being an expert, I see it as you have these worldly goods, and you have these worldly contracts and possibilities. While these worldly matters do touch on the natural/sacramental aspects of marriage, I know of similar situations to what you want, where, again, the highest canon law courts have said there was a valid marriage.

You should also talk to a lawyer. Ask around your parish for a recommendation, so hopefully you get a Catholic who has some understanding of the spiritual issues we're raising. Depending on the nature of the assets and where you live, you may not need to worry, or a pre-nup may not be the right solution.

ElisabethJoanne · December 2011

Ah, agape and I read the Canon Law differently. I'll add to my advice. Get a copy of John Noonan's book on the canon law of marriage. It's fun and really interesting.

afrenchprincess · December 2011

Thanks ElisabethJoanne! I know if an attorney in our parish. I will speak with him about this.

agapecarrie · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:434581c6-43eb-4f73-bf6a-d63b0dc712bb">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]. Pre-nups say: Bride will wed Groom. If, after they are wed, either or both seek dissolution of the marriage, Groom will pay... In the first, the intent to contract is only if an extraneous condition is paid. In the latter, their is an intent to contract, but in the un-hoped-for event, then there's a fall-out. (Condition precedent v. damages in case of breach) I also don't see how this pre-nup differs substantially from what I know is valid, which is a bride saying she retains the right to a divorce if she stops liking the groom. If the marriage is still valid while one party is acknowledging the possibility of divorce out loud, what does financial arrangements add to that acknowledgment? Sure, there's problems when the civil law does not follow the natural law, but it doesn't change the natural law or the canon law. The highest Canon Law tribunals have decreed that a Catholic can marry a Protestant in the Catholic Church; the Protestant can obtain a civil divorce and a civil second marriage; and yet the original couple is still sacramentally married, or still married in the eyes of the Church. Please enlighten me on what the distinction might be in those circumstances between sacramentally married and married in the eyes of the Church. "Fruitful" also needs fleshing-out here.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

<div>Your 2nd scenario would also call for invalidation, depending on how these statements were made, how they were proven.</div><div>
</div><div>The highest canon law tribunals would not say that a protestant can divorce a catholic and marry someone else...I have no idea what that has to do with this anyway.</div><div>
</div><div>Married in the eyes of the church and sacramentally married are not seperate here. I don't know why you are bringing this up? </div>

ootmother2 · December 2011

Both my daughter & I were married with prenups, well known to the priests.

They were required by family controlled assets that neither one of us could personally control.

Neither church had any problem with these

afrenchprincess · December 2011

ootmother2 Was it a prenup that said something about "In the event of divorce?" Or was it just in the event of death?

cebrady89 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:f147cad4-7e18-48b6-a9c4-b7fa0702b420">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]Regarding Riss's bolded Canons, I'm not a canonist, but I've read from canonist that even a Protestant saying "I intend to get a divorce if I stop liking him" when marrying a Catholic did not invalidate the Sacrament. Something like she didn't plan on not liking him, and she acknowledged that marriage was supposed to be sacramental and permanent. You can read all sorts of interesting stories in a book by John Noonan. As a civil lawyer, I don't understand how a pre-nup creates a condition about the future. It's not an expected condition, necessarily. Marriages that have been invalidated were ones where money was to change hands after the wedding - dowries gone wrong. Everyone's in agreement that pre-nups regarding death, which are basically contracts about wills, are OK. Yet death is a certain future condition within the marriage. <strong>Then there's the whole civil v. sacramental character of marriage. Making agreements about the civil aspects of marriage might be separable from the sacramental realities. Obviously people can be civilly married without being sacramentally married (same-sex marriages), and people can be sacramentally married without being civilly married (divorce following sacramental marriage, no annullment).</strong>
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>I agree with you here. Of course we Catholics enter into marriage with the understanding that it is a Sacrament and that it holds more meaning that civil marriages do. </div><div>
</div><div>During Pre-Cana we were given a handout that listed side by side the differences between civil and sacramental marriage - contract v covenant, etc. Catholics believe that entering into marriage is entering into a covenant which cannot be broken, but we are not ONLY marrying in the Church - we are marrying LEGALLY as well, and legalities have to be taken into account. Civil and Sacramental marriages are not mutuall exclusive.</div><div>
</div><div>I think it's okay to discuss legal aspects of marriage along with the spiritual aspects.

</div>

professorscience · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:9bd54345-aa82-4a34-8ca8-42da505f94f7">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]Thanks ElisabethJoanne! I know if an attorney in our parish. I will speak with him about this.
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]

<div>You don't just want an attorney. You want a <strong>canon lawyer</strong>. Our parish has one on staff, but if yours doesn't, they can almost certainly point you in the right direction.</div><div>
</div><div>I think it's a very fine line. Obviously there are very mixed feelings about it here on this board. Again, it's one of those things that you and your FI should be able to discuss <strong>without</strong> getting a contract drawn up, and then if after you've discussed you still feel a pre-nup is necessary, you make sure you're still in line with the church when you draw it up.</div>

afrenchprincess · December 2011

Ok I will see if he is a Cannon attorney if not hopefully my parish office can direct to somebody in the diocese. Also, I have spoken in length with my FI about this he is ok with a prenup.

ootmother2 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:7d959193-9c51-46cc-8dbc-1f941567102f">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]ootmother2 Was it a prenup that said something about "In the event of divorce?" Or was it just in the event of death?
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]

Both. I almost hate to admit that I know so little about the matter. It's never really been part of my life and wasn't part of my divorce. It just existed and I read and signed it. haha, I'm not even sure if my daughter read it ;)

My suggestion is to find a good canon lawyer to advise you in this matter. A wedding chat site is not the place to be looking for this type of advice.

I'm sure that some of the ladies have a smattering of real canon law but not to the extent that you need.

There was a knottie on here a few years back whose husband was tragically killed in an accident about 2 years after they were married. They were both quite successful in their professions but had not even thought of wills or prenups (who does at 28?)
.
This probably could depend on the state, but as she was related to her husband only 1/3 by marriage and his parents were related 2/3 by blood, they stepped in and forced her to sell almost everything they owned jointly. A simple prenup or will would have prevented this.

Calypso1977 · December 2011

This probably could depend on the state, but as she was related to her husband only 1/3 by marriage and his parents were related 2/3 by blood, they stepped in and forced her to sell almost everything they owned jointly. A simple prenup or will would have prevented this.

or picking a guy with a better family! LOL

we designated each other as beneficiaries on everything since i knew that my IL's would do just this if something happened to my H.

We've discussed doing wills, but we dont really have anything significant to will oen another. however, if i got pregant, you can betcha my second phone call with the big news would be to my lawyer to start drawing up a will so that my child would inherit what was due to him/her.

lalaith50 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:1f033377-ad98-4662-9ed3-f243503edc09">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]Ok I will see if he is a Cannon attorney if not hopefully my parish office can direct to somebody in the diocese. Also, I have spoken in length with my FI about this he is ok with a prenup.
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]
For your own sake, please don't ever use the phrase "Cannon attorney" ever again.<div> As has been written several times in this post already, if/when you decide to investigate how to speak with one, you should say or write "<strong>canon lawyer</strong>," if you would like to avoid being laughed at.</div>

afrenchprincess · December 2011

Why would I be laughed at lalaith? I am confused. I know I misspelled Cannon/Canon. What is the problem?

ElisabethJoanne · December 2011

OP, the consensus is you need both. An attorney, the lawyer of the kind everyone more or less knows about, the kind you see on TV. And a canon lawyer or canonist. A canon lawyer is someone trained in Canon Law to work in Church courts (called tribunals). They go to entirely different schools than regular lawyers, and are licensed entirely separately.

I, personally, don't think you need both. I've known lots of very experienced canon lawyers, and I've never heard of just hiring or consulting one, outside of history books. I, personally, think you need a devout Catholic regular-lawyer, and a serious conversation with someone schooled in canon law. That may just be a Priest or Spiritual Director. They have to take canon law classes, though they're not usually canon lawyers. Some are, though. [It's like accountants need to know tax law to prepare tax returns, but aren't usually lawyers. It's possible to be both an accountant and a lawyer, though.] If that Priest or Spiritual Director can't answer your questions he should be able to refer you to the next step, or take the questions to someone more learned in canon law himself.

If your parish has a canon lawyer on staff for parishioners' questions, fine. But I hate referring people to expensive experts when there are free, effective alternatives. Especially when it comes to weddings.

afrenchprincess · December 2011

Thanks so much ElisbethJoanne for the clarifiication! I really appreciate it and thanks I will do that!

professorscience · December 2011

I wasn't saying she needed to hire a canon lawyer. EJ, you keep telling her to find someone well-versed in canon law. To me, that equals canon lawyer.

afrenchprincess · December 2011

lalith you didn't explain how or why I was using cannon lawyer incorrectly and that I would be laughed at? I think you should give the reasons as well because that was not very helpful. But thanks to ElisabethJoanne for explaining the difference!

lalaith50 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:e5e638e1-3b02-4587-8ed9-214594246860">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]lalith you didn't explain how or why I was using cannon lawyer incorrectly and that I would be laughed at? I think you should give the reasons as well because that was not very helpful. But thanks to ElisabethJoanne for explaining the difference!
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]
Are you serious? I guess I need to spell this out (haha, no pun intended...)<div>
<div><strong>Cannon attorney</strong> (which is what you wrote- see my quote above,) does not equal <strong>Canon lawyer</strong>, neither in the spelling of "canon" nor in what it's called.</div><div>
</div><div>A "<strong>cannon</strong>" is "any piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellents to launch a projectile."</div><div style="text-align:-webkit-auto;"><font face="arial, sans-serif" size="2" color="#222222"><span style="line-height:16px;">A "<strong>canon</strong>" has to do with "regulations or dogmas decreed by a church council," or, more generally, "principles, rules, standards, or norms."</span></font></div></div><div style="text-align:-webkit-auto;"><font face="arial, sans-serif" size="2" color="#222222"><span style="line-height:16px;">
</span></font></div><div style="text-align:-webkit-auto;"><font face="arial, sans-serif" size="2" color="#222222"><span style="line-height:16px;">I'm just saying, there is no such thing as a "Canon attorney," and if you call it a "Cannon lawyer" or "Cannon attorney," then people are going to visualize a projectile-launching piece of machinery...and in either case, will think that you either do not know what you are talking about, or else do not care enough to learn how to spell things correctly.</span></font></div>

afrenchprincess · December 2011

Lalaith as I said in the previous post I spelled it incorrectly. Assuming that you can differentiate between cannonand canon. Either way in this discussion everyoe knew what I was referring to. Besides you or you just want to a smarty pants. Either way thanks for clearing that up! Good Day!

lalaith50 · December 2011

<div>OP-</div>wow. you really just want to argue, don't you? Lucky for you, I'm in the sort of mood where I'm up for explaining everything all over again! :-D<div>Especially since I don't really appreciate being called a "smarty pants," (or, I assume that's what you were trying to do, but that sentence in itself doesn't exactly make grammatical sense...) I will try to lay out how I was only trying to be helpful.
<div>
</div><div>After the exact phrase "canon lawyer" had been written out at least once in the thread, you called it a "cannon attorney" when saying what you were going to ask your parish office about it.</div><div>
</div><div>I then nicely suggested that it wouldn't hurt if you spelled it correctly and used the proper phrasing, so that people wouldn't laugh at you.</div><div>
</div><div>Then you said:</div><div>[QUOTE]Why would I be laughed at lalaith? I am confused. I know I misspelled Cannon/Canon. What is the problem?
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE]
</div><div>
</div><div>I didn't see a need to answer, since if you <em>knew</em> that you had mispelled it and used the wrong phrase, then good, we can move on, so I ignored your question.</div><div>
</div><div>But apparently you wanted me to spell it all out for you:</div><div>[QUOTE]lalith you didn't explain how or why I was using cannon lawyer incorrectly and that I would be laughed at? I think you should give the reasons as well because that was not very helpful. But thanks to ElisabethJoanne for explaining the difference!
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE] </div><div>Now it's easy to ignore one dumb question, but ignoring <em>two</em> makes me look like a jerk. </div><div>So, since you didn't seem to understand that some people appreciate things being spelled correctly, or you just don't even take the time to spell things correctly, (including things like <em>names</em> or even <em>screen names, ahem) </em>and <em>some</em> people (not saying myself, but perhaps some people that you would encounter in an law/office or even church setting) would not take you very seriously if you misspelled something like "canon" or used the wrong phrasing, and they <em>might</em> laugh at you (at least to themselves,) I decided to explain why.</div><div>(But clearly, given my original suggestion to spell "canon" correctly and your continued misspelling of it, it just seems to me that you don't really care.)</div><div>
</div><div>So, since not only did you NOT seem to understand why people might find it amusing that you can't differentiate between "canon" and "a cannon," and you really seemed to require the explanation, I finally responded to that with a very clear description of what a "canon" and a "cannon" are.</div><div>
</div><div>To which you responded:</div><div>[QUOTE]Lalaith as I said in the previous post I spelled it incorrectly. Assuming that you can differentiate between cannonand canon. Either way in this discussion everyoe knew what I was referring to. Besides you or you just want to a smarty pants. Either way thanks for clearing that up! Good Day!
Posted by afrenchprincess[/QUOTE] </div><div>I'm not sure how <em>that</em> response is called for, since it doesn't really have anything to do with my original suggestion, which was what term/spelling to use after you had mentioned that you were going to be talking to your <em>parish office</em>, who might not know to what you're referring, so I still stand by my advice as being potentially helpful.</div><div>
</div><div>Based on this as well as another thread on this board, you don't seem to handle people trying to nicely explain to you how you're wrong very well, do you? </div><div>Well... good luck in your marriage! <img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" /> I hope you don't go around calling your future husband names like you do to the ladies on this board!</div></div>

afrenchprincess · December 2011

I don't find anything wrong with a good spirited argument lalaith. I was just expressing how I felt just like you did and have continued to do. Sorry that my grammer on a wedding board is not up to your standards! I am sorry that "smarty pants" is offensive to you. As I felt your were and continue to behave in that manner! Now that I am done with you I can continue my thread with people that are trying to be helpful rather than snotty! Again, Good Day Ma'am!

professorscience · December 2011

OP, does this attorney you know at your church work for the parish? If he/she doesn't, it's kind of silly to just assume he's a canon lawyer. It's worth a shot I guess, and the person might be able to get you to someone who can help.

Also, maybe we could all tone down the overreactions?

Kamakanani · December 2011

afrenchprincess - based not only on this thread but on others, I would greatly suggest reevaluating your desire for the Sacrament of marriage through the Church. As someone who has gone through a civil divorce and is currently awaiting a verdict on her lack of form annulment, Marriage is not something to take lightly.

I have also struggled to find my place in faith and in the Church, and that is something else you truly need to spend some time in discernment on, especially if you aren't sure you 100% agree with the doctrine. Up until this year, I had no issues taking the Pill, but I have recently stopped, and am looking forward to finding someone to help me with NFP.

As far as your comments to some of the other posters on here, it appears to me that Lalaith and others are just trying to help you. It appears that since another poster had answered your question that had been aimed at Lalaith (regarding canon lawyer vs Cannon attorney), there was no real need for Lalaith to reiterate that same information. Unless I am drastically misreading the posts you have recently added to this thread, there is far more snarkiness in your tone than in anything Lalaith or anyone else has added to the discussion.

I truly hope you can find peace, and pray that you will see God's path for you in this world.

ootmother2 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:277dc08c-0d5d-4ffb-98f9-0a6af73b96a2">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]OP, the consensus is you need both. An attorney, the lawyer of the kind everyone more or less knows about, the kind you see on TV. And a canon lawyer or canonist. A canon lawyer is someone trained in Canon Law to work in Church courts (called tribunals). They go to entirely different schools than regular lawyers, and are licensed entirely separately. I, personally, don't think you need both. I've known lots of very experienced canon lawyers, and I've never heard of just hiring or consulting one, outside of history books. I, personally, think you need a devout Catholic regular-lawyer, and a serious conversation with someone schooled in canon law. That may just be a Priest or Spiritual Director. They have to take canon law classes, though they're not usually canon lawyers. Some are, though. [It's like accountants need to know tax law to prepare tax returns, but aren't usually lawyers. It's possible to be both an accountant and a lawyer, though.] If that Priest or Spiritual Director can't answer your questions he should be able to refer you to the next step, or take the questions to someone more learned in canon law himself. If your parish has a canon lawyer on staff for parishioners' questions, fine. But I hate referring people to expensive experts when there are free, effective alternatives. Especially when it comes to weddings.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

IMO, we are quite fortunate to have ElisabethJoanne and her knowledge on the board for this subject.

EJ, thank you so much!

ElisabethJoanne · December 2011

Thank you, oot.

'cause I saw the article in today's NYT, and it might cause more confusion, Bishop Paprocki is really rare, if it's true he's both a civil (regular) lawyer and a canon lawyer, as today's NYT reports. Mostly, civil lawyers and canon lawyers avoid each other, in a good-natured way.

ootmother2 · December 2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_lets-talk-prenups?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6c84db57-a4b9-4d2f-bf52-8b5e591b2449Post:306209af-ded7-48dc-b15c-a39f2a027888">Re: Let's Talk Prenups</a>:
[QUOTE]Thank you, oot. 'cause I saw the article in today's NYT, and it might cause more confusion, Bishop Paprocki is really rare, if it's true he's both a civil (regular) lawyer and a canon lawyer, as today's NYT reports. Mostly, civil lawyers and canon lawyers avoid each other, in a good-natured way.
Posted by ElisabethJoanne[/QUOTE]

Let's just say that I read the NYT and found Bishop Paprocki's comments quite interesting but I doubt they like him much in St. Louis. "I"m quite sure God appreciates putting dogma over support for those in need" <img src="http://cdn.cl9.vanillaforums.com/downloaded/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" />. Can you tell that I am Jesuit educated?

(ladies, this part has absolutely nothing to do with original subject of post)

Elisabeth, you might enjoy reading The Deacon, free subscription the Bishop's site ;) It's not always great but generally gives you something new to think about.

Let's Talk Prenups

Re: Let's Talk Prenups

Choose Another Board

Search Boards