Separate property in marriage?

[Jayne]

Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.

Exactly.  One really needs to understand the context to understand why GoG's plan makes sense.  I don't see any problems with it when considered as a reaction to no-fault divorce laws.

On other forums, I've seen men react by embracing MGTOW or promoting pre-nuptial contracts.  In comparison, GoG is remarkably Catholic and reasonable.

[Jayne]

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You do not seem to have understood GOG's posts on this.  It is clear that he intends to use the rental income for the benefit of his wife and family.  The only way it would affect his wife would be if they got divorced, something that should never happen.  I see it as comparable as accident insurance: one creates financial protection for a situation that one neither intends nor hopes for, in the knowledge that it is nevertheless possible. This house was bought without any help from a wife.  I do not see why a future wife would have any moral right to it in the event of divorce.

There is nothing in his posts to suggest that he would not be a good provider for his wife.  On the contrary, he seems to have a good sense of financial prudence, so it actually speaks in his favour.

[christulsa]

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You do not seem to have understood GOG's posts on this.  It is clear that he intends to use the rental income for the benefit of his wife and family.  The only way it would affect his wife would be if they got divorced, something that should never happen.  I see it as comparable as accident insurance: one creates financial protection for a situation that one neither intends nor hopes for, in the knowledge that it is nevertheless possible. This house was bought without any help from a wife.  I do not see why a future wife would have any moral right to it in the event of divorce.

There is nothing in his posts to suggest that he would not be a good provider for his wife.  On the contrary, he seems to have a good sense of financial prudence, so it actually speaks in his favour.

No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.

[Philip G.]

The fatal error of giftofgod is that he seeks to assume the role of the cultural superior in regards to marriage.  And, I will remind you that marriage is primarily a cultural affair, just as the priesthood is primarily a spiritual affair.  He does so by perverting/inverting the concept of the dowry and/or "bride price/token", which belongs solely to the bride, and even bears a parable from Our Lord in the form of the lost coin, found by a woman, not a man.  This is a total inversion of reality and truth regarding matrimony. 

At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children.  At third worst, you have the male with his trophy wife.  And, a fourth worst, may God have mercy. 

The best thing that could happen to GiftofGod is that he be taken for every penny.  The last thing he needs is to be making music with those two pennies he cares so much about.

[Jayne]

No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.

While that particular post may be open to misinterpretation (especially by someone looking for a fight) GoG clarified what he meant in later posts.

"Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."
[..]
You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.

In charity, you should stop trying to provoke posters into getting themselves banned.

[GiftOfGod]

If my daughter told her future husband that she was keeping her own inheritance married or not, I'd tell him to run and I'd kick her up the backside.  What a horrible scrooge mentality before marriage.

For me as a mother, its my instinct as well as my reason that tells me somethings off here and given some of your other posts, there is context and I think you are stingy.  Nothing wrong with that but you cannot be stingy with your wife and children.
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.

The USA has had no-fault divorce since the 1960s. Divorce is very popular with Novus Ordo Catholics in the USA. Divorce rates are high and they are usually female-initiated. Judging by Ireland's love of homos and abortion, I'm sure love for divorce will soon follow. Also, please learn how to quote.

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

Jesus' quote has nothing to do with money. Do you have a Catholic source, other than your misinterpretation of Jesus' words?

The fatal error of giftofgod is that he seeks to assume the role of the cultural superior in regards to marriage.  And, I will remind you that marriage is primarily a cultural affair, just as the priesthood is primarily a spiritual affair.  He does so by perverting/inverting the concept of the dowry

I stopped reading there.

Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.

Cite the "Catholic teaching" or shut up.

[christulsa]

No. You are the one confused about what he wrote in the post.  Reread it, and then try and justify a man wanting to keep his property in his name, so that future rental income after marriage "is mine."  You know very well that is not in accord with Catholic teaching, and selfish.  In charity for GoG, you should be truthful about this statement.

While that particular post may be open to misinterpretation (especially by someone looking for a fight) GoG clarified what he meant in later posts.

"Of course, I would use the income on my family and it might even be able to help my wife and I make the mortgage payment on the house we buy together."
[..]
You are assuming that I will not use it for the family's benefit. This is a traditional Catholic forum, so you should be assuming that a traditional Catholic husband would use it for his family's benefit.

In charity, you should stop trying to provoke posters into getting themselves banned.

Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--i.e. in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He tells them his "rule" after just a few dates, expects them to pay for their meal, claims he's gone on hundreds of dates recently with many women (most not Catholic), wants to teach them how to fill out their debit card receipt.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

[christulsa]

Email Fr. Themann, head of the SSPX Argentinian seminary.  He prepared me and my wife for marriage.  Ask for his notes, and the reference.  I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.  A wife has a right to to share in her husband's income.   From your last defensive post, you obviously think women don't.

[Jayne]

Nice try.  GoG is duplicitous and stingy--in his attitude about telling his dates about his property, as MANY people here are trying to point out.  You are just being contrarian and virtue-signalling to the majority.  He clearly states one position, and then after being confronted about it back tracks claiming the opposite position. It's transparent, and the guy knows it.   He did that when he said several times that he didn't care anything about the women he dated, but then long later claimed he only meant they didn't mean anything "romantically."  And he's doing that about his stingy rule to retain his property.  He clearly stated he wants to keep the rental income for himself.   But we know why you are defending him, Jane.  It is transparent.

Well I don't know why you have been hounding him and making up negative interpretations for everything he says.  If I had to guess, I'd say it's because of your love of creating forum drama and your sense of self-importance.

There is nothing "stingy" about recognizing how vulnerable (both emotionally and financially) no-fault divorce makes men.  Nor is there anything wrong with not feeling emotional attachment to all the people that one has ever dated.  I can't even remember everyone I ever dated.  I would imagine that it is common that people do not have strong feelings for each other when they have only dated a few times.  They are only beginning to get to know each other.

I'm not going to waste my time proving what should be obvious to a traditional Catholic.  A wife has a right to to share in her husband's income.   From your last defensive post, you obviously think women don't.

There is no "obvious" teaching that says a woman has a right to her husband's income.  There is Catholic teaching that a husband has a duty to provide for his wife.  A man can do that perfectly well while being in control of the money he earns.  That was, in fact, the way things worked for most of Church history.

[queen.saints]

No-fault divorce is a fundamentally evil social institution.  It casts a shadow on every marriage, even those of traditional Catholics.  Every married person faces the knowledge that one's spouse can unilaterally end the marriage, no matter what one does.  Of course, we like to think that trads would not divorce, but we know it happens.

GoG has come up with a way to slightly mitigate this horrible evil.  It makes divorce less attractive to the wife (statistically the one more likely to file for divorce) so it ought to help the marriage.  I see no reason for the negative (and often unkind) responses that I am seeing to his idea.  Personally, I would have no problem with my daughter marrying a man who wanted to arrange his property this way.

It's exactly the same with abortion. It takes away the rights of every child in the womb, even the children of pro-life parents. And divorce destabilizes every marriage, even the marriages of people who don't believe in it.

It's the same, again, with modern inheritance law. It takes away the rights of all legitimate heirs, even the ones whose parents want to leave the money to the right person.

[christulsa]

LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).

[queen.saints]

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You said you weren't going to post in this thread anymore.

[christulsa]

I want to keep my house as a rental and in my name so that the future income and appreciation is mine. My future wife and I will buy another house together for us to live in. "Sole and separate property" is an old concept from Spain and is does not go against Catholicism, as prenuptial agreements do.

You would be denying your wife her right to her share of your income, GoG, especially unjust if she depends on you solely for her income while raising children and maintaining a home.  The two shall become one flesh.  A wife has a right to share in everything her husband earns.

You said you weren't going to post in this thread anymore.

From the woman who thinks the insanity of the Shiites in India represents not only the entire subcontinent of India, but the trad Catholics who attend the TLM at the SSPX priories in India.  You're as nuts as Jane.

[queen.saints]

If my daughter told her future husband that she was keeping her own inheritance married or not, I'd tell him to run and I'd kick her up the backside.  What a horrible scrooge mentality before marriage.

For me as a mother, its my instinct as well as my reason that tells me somethings off here and given some of your other posts, there is context and I think you are stingy.  Nothing wrong with that but you cannot be stingy with your wife and children.
Anyway I will say that we only have divorce in Ireland since 1995, my parents were married 52 years and my family and friends are all in long marriages bar one separation so my experience of divorce isn't as raw as it would be for you in the US .  I'd imagine there are some scars for most people in the US which would account for the cynicism versus my rose tinted glasses.

An Irish woman I know just divorced her husband this year and took €697,000 off him, plus an extra €100,000 that had been put aside for the children's education.

Divorce is a legitimate, serious concern in any country in which it is legal.

[Jayne]

LOL.  You have been the par excellence forum drama queen across multiple trad fora, month after month, for more than a decade.  Literally hundreds of people, at the very least, have called you out on this.  Pot calling the kettle black.  And you should be ashamed of yourself as a woman, and a traditional Catholic woman no less, defending what many here are rightfully and reasonably identifying as a man with prideful, self-centered, obvious misogynistic attitudes towards women (though I do like other things about him, we are debating if the guy has his head screwed on straight when it comes to dating and women, which the guy clearly doesn't).

I suppose you are using "literally" in the recent sense of "figuratively".  Nowhere near hundreds of people have called me a drama queen.

At any rate, you are reading a great deal into GoG's posts with very little justification that I can see.  Since you like exhorting people to be charitable, you should consider what St. Ignatius had to say:

It should be presupposed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor's statement than to condemn it. Further, if he cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it. If that meaning is wrong, one should correct the person with love; and if this is not enough, one should search out every appropriate means through which, by understanding the statement in a good way, it may be saved.

This is actually a Catholic teaching, unlike your claims about a woman's right to her husband's income.