Catholic Church And Prenuptial Agreements

There is nothing wrong with singing marital chords that deal with what happens when you die. Comment from 1983. 1102 / Dom Augustinus Comments on 1917 can. 1092 – Chapter 9 on Ford`s Pre-Marital Agreements, S.J.s Validity of Virginal Marriage Whether a new vision of the Church is necessary or not, it is necessary to argue for canonical lawyers, but clients sometimes find their faith in conflict with the civil trials they perform either for marriage or divorce. When it comes to conjugal agreements, Catholics argue with the code of canon law 1192 No. 1, which says, “A marriage on a condition for the future cannot be concluded with validity.” My husband and I married outside the Catholic Church in 1999. He`s a Catholic. I went through RCIA and became a Catholic, so we were able to remarry in church and raise our Catholic children together. I signed a pre-wedding contract, involuntarily. When we married a few years later in the Catholic Church, the Prenup was never raised and we got married. We`re getting a divorce. Couldn`t the prenup get us married without a new prenup and wasn`t a part of that marriage? Or could our marriage in the church be invalidated!!??? It is suggested that the priest or deacon ask the couple for the possible presence of a conjugal arrangement at the first meeting, as well as questions about the possible presence of a previous marriage.

The couple must understand that a marriage for religious reasons can be an obstacle to marriage in the Catholic Church. A legal document protecting the property separated from potential spouses can completely undermine and invalidate the community of life, which is essential for marriage. However, some courts do not recognize this innate problem in the characterization of a mahr as a marriage contract. For example, in New Jersey, the court in Chaudry v. Chaudry, 388 A.D.2d 1000 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978), found that Mahr`s agreement was an tenuptial agreement, so that it refilled child support or fair distribution and gave the wife only $1,500 of her deferred Mahr instead of half of her wealthy husband`s estate.

Although it can be considered progressive, the problem of the New York law is twofold. The marriage agreement is activated by the beginning of a divorce.