Author Topic: Separate property in marriage?  (Read 6808 times)

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Thanked: 3800 times
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #150 on: December 14, 2020, 08:42:44 AM »

Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc.  I know it well.  And, I reject two ends theology. 

No, you don't know it well, since there is no "two ends" theology in Casti Connubii. If you're thinking of the "two meanings" of Humanae Vitae (the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning), that personalist language didn't appear until after Vatican II.

Casti Connubii follows the outline of St. Augustine who taught that there are 3 bonae (goods) of marriage.

1. Procreation and education of children.
2. Mutual support of the spouses
3. Permanence

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:

“These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”

And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:

“By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;

with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;

finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.

This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”
 
The following users thanked this post: queen.saints, Blue Violet

Online christulsa

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3645
  • Thanked: 2106 times
    • The Okie Traditionalist Blog
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #151 on: December 14, 2020, 09:39:41 AM »
The  Holy See clarified CC in 1944 over the controversy over two ends, affirming "two ends" as two categories of purposes in marriage:  one objective and primary, the "finis operis" (procreation, education of children), the second category subjective and secondary the "finis operantis." 

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/social-teaching/moral-issues/93-social-teaching/moral-issues/342-roman-rota-on-the-ends-of-marriage.html

From CC:

"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 09:50:31 AM by christulsa »
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Thanked: 411 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #152 on: December 14, 2020, 11:32:53 AM »
Maximilian - Casti Connubii introduced two ordered ends, and humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

Read Christulsa's post.  The language and concept of two-ends was long before humanae vitae. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Thanked: 3800 times
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #153 on: December 14, 2020, 01:06:16 PM »
Maximilian - Casti Connubii introduced two ordered ends, and humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

Read Christulsa's post.  The language and concept of two-ends was long before humanae vitae.

Casti Connubii does not use the phrase "two ends," and neither does Chris' post. Regarding the ends of marriage, it says that one is designated as primary, while the others are secondary. So you can have "categories" of ends, which can fall into either primary or secondary.

humanae vitae nullified the ordering along with casually reversing them. 

True.
 
The following users thanked this post: queen.saints, christulsa

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Thanked: 411 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #154 on: December 16, 2020, 06:35:52 AM »

Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc.  I know it well.  And, I reject two ends theology. 

No, you don't know it well, since there is no "two ends" theology in Casti Connubii. If you're thinking of the "two meanings" of Humanae Vitae (the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning), that personalist language didn't appear until after Vatican II.

Casti Connubii follows the outline of St. Augustine who taught that there are 3 bonae (goods) of marriage.

1. Procreation and education of children.
2. Mutual support of the spouses
3. Permanence

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:

“These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”

And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:

“By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;

with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;

finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.

This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”

The whole point of introducing a language of "secondary ends" is to one, inculcate couples with a dualism, an two reverse "ends" that are in fact not even ends. 

Their intention is to reverse the three goods of matrimony on all three accounts, hence my "two ends"(one end for each). 

(#50 CC) For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

In my opinion, these "secondary ends" are novel language(step one modernist modus) and an open door to replace and ultimately pervert the three goods taught by the council of Florence.  You would be better served to reference the council as opposed to what you listed by St. Augustine. 

DZ 702 Council of Florence - "Moreover there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony.  First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up in the worship of God.  Second, there is faith which one of the spouses ought to keep for the other.  Third, there is the indivisibility of marriage, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church."

In contrast to accepting progeny, they prefer the "quieting of concupiscence".  The good is not another child, the "good" is that the fires of passion can be calmed.  If this is not the direct contrast, being that the document does speak of a proper primary end, then the "quieting of concupiscence" truly becomes the odd man out, sticking out like a sore thumb.  This would not surprise me, as it, by way of NFP, is the bloody knife in all of these regards.

In contrast to faith, they prefer the cultivating of "mutual love".

In contrast to the indivisibility of marriage, they prefer "mutual aid". 

This same council decreed Dz 695 that "through matrimony" the church is "corporeally increased".  Look it up, there is no confusion.  That is the one end of matrimony.  Because, if you look at the three goods, only one of those should result in corporal increase.  And, that one end is "the accepting of progeny". 

"Faith without works is dead".  Just as there remains faith, hope, and charity.  "The greatest of these is charity".

The matrimonial good of "faith" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is invalid between catholic and non catholic.  We don't believe as those loose modern women do whose intention when fornicating with beastly men like for example hunter biden is based on a belief that it will "save him".   

The matrimonial good of "indivisibility" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is a "sacrament".  Man seduced by a woman does not become her temporal "slave" until she eternally decides to "put him to death no differently than one might put to death a horse" - Louis de montfort.   And, this De Montfort considered a duty/obligation respective of such a woman's exalted dignity(and Christulsa doesn't believe me).

This is what happens when you allow mixed marriages in the church(pre vatican 2).  This is what happens when you place burdens on women that you yourself are unwilling to help lift(pre vatican 2).  This is what happens when Christ is not King. This is what happens when means become ends.  Ends become means. 
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 01:12:12 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13787
  • Thanked: 6123 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #155 on: December 17, 2020, 07:45:53 PM »
Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.

Excuse me for derailing the thread you started, GiftofGod, but I think it is important to reply to this, even though unrelated to the topic.  There is already a problem with christulsa turning one thread after another into the subject of a bet.  I don't want to encourage him to think that framing his wishes as a bet is a good way to make people do what he wants.  I would have left the thread, but am posting now because of this "bet" nonsense.

And since I am posting anyhow, you may be amused by the contrast between what chris said about Greg and I in this thread and what he wrote some months ago:

Well I guess I just fail to see how a man is a Catholic gentleman to be admired across a Catholic forum who habitually brags about his successes while insulting trad men who don’t measure up for him, spending years on end arguing with a grandmother because he doesn’t like her personality, and justifies lying, cheating, and manipulating others.  And that isn’t even a value judgment per se, but observable facts most here would honestly admit represents his posting history.   Perhaps those facts can be defended, or not, but they are facts.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Chestertonian

  • The Stephen Hawking of SD
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 12640
  • Thanked: 5563 times
  • Eternal Gadfly
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2020, 09:19:24 AM »
The more I think about it, the more I think that it is a reasonable idea.  I see no basis for thinking it would make a man a bad husband.  This way of arranging the property would not even affect the wife unless they got divorced.  In theory, a woman who has no intention of divorce should not care about it.

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.

If pre nups render the marriage invalid, it isn't a marriage
"I am not much of a Crusader, that is for sure, but at least I am not a Mohamedist!"
 

Offline Aulef

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 38 times
  • Religion: One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #157 on: December 18, 2020, 11:46:31 AM »
Sounds like you're weeding out gold-diggers. Good job. Keep looking. St. Raphael will provide. ☺
I read a pre-Vatican II marriage prep book that said to avoid materialistic women like the plague.

Look at St. John Chrysostom's description of an idea/attractive wife (from his On Virginity):
Quote
it is not by beautifying herself, or by living a life of luxury, or by demanding from her husband money, or by being extravagant and lavish that she will be able to win him over. When she removes herself from all present concerns and imprints upon herself the apostolic way of life, when she displays great modesty, decorum, disdain for money and forbearance, then will she be able to capture him. When she says: "If we have food and clothing we have all that we need," [l Tim 6:8] when she practices this philosophy in her actions and, laughing at physical death, calls this life nothing, when she considers along with the prophet every glory of this life to be as the flower of the field, [Isa. 40:6] then she will capture him.

Also, all property is marriage should be common.

This.

And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.
Tota pulchra es, Maria
Et macula originalis non est in Te
 
The following users thanked this post: diaduit, Blue Violet, Angela

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
  • Thanked: 113 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #158 on: December 20, 2020, 12:11:24 AM »
And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.

Do you have a Catholic source for that? A Council? Pope? Bishop? Priest? Heck, what about a layman's book with an imprimatur pre Vatican-II?

Or could it be that it is your personal opinion? You said that you are from Latin America. Does your country not follow community property law? All Iberian countries do, or so I thought.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2020, 04:22:01 AM by GiftOfGod »
 
The following users thanked this post: queen.saints

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Thanked: 411 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #159 on: December 20, 2020, 12:17:29 AM »
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline andy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 40 times
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #160 on: December 20, 2020, 12:43:39 AM »
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

And he forgets that the most precious thing man can have is his time and not some $$$$.

 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
  • Thanked: 113 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #161 on: December 20, 2020, 04:24:52 AM »
GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

That concept is "taught" just as must as having servants.

GiftofGod apes the dowry, which is a concept taught in the Gospels under the parable of the lost coin.

And he forgets that the most precious thing man can have is his time and not some $$$$.

Time is money, which is why I know men who must spend time working until they die of old age because they didn't have money, sometimes resulting from a divorce.
 

Offline andy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 40 times
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #162 on: December 20, 2020, 06:01:09 PM »
Time is money, which is why I know men who must spend time working until they die of old age because they didn't have money, sometimes resulting from a divorce.

Not sure if you ride motorcycles or have another hobby, but if you do you should be familiar with a phenomenon of target fixation. This vid should explain it well
In other words, if you fixate on a divorce, you will most likely make it happen. With your own hands.

By the way, for this response, please say a decade of Rosary in my intention. I would greatly appreciate it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Chestertonian, Blue Violet

Offline Aulef

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 38 times
  • Religion: One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #163 on: December 23, 2020, 06:57:09 AM »
And I want to highlight something: ALL property in marriage has be common. Otherwise it will be a broken relationship from the beginning.

OP, you should find another way to figure out whether women are after your riches or your they wanna grow in sanctity with you.

Do you have a Catholic source for that? A Council? Pope? Bishop? Priest? Heck, what about a layman's book with an imprimatur pre Vatican-II?

Or could it be that it is your personal opinion? You said that you are from Latin America. Does your country not follow community property law? All Iberian countries do, or so I thought.


I don't have any source that I remember of on the spot, so, yes, for now it is a personal yet based opinion.

I say based opinion for a simple reason: in marriage the nubents are supposed to become one. This is a direct order from God. I wonder how it is possible to become one when their intellect and will don't agree on sharing all their belongings for the primary end of marriage which is procreation and education of children. If you have a good explanation, please, share with us.

Regarding the country I live following community property law, yes, you are right. It is, however it changed a lot in the past 300 years. When the state was still aligned with the Church, the rule was universal community property, that is, all property would be shared even the ones aquired prior to the marriage. In fact, this is another reason why I said what I said. The Portuguese empire and later the Brazilian empire, both under heavy influence of the Holy Catholic Church, made universal community property mandatory.

Unfortunately, after freemasons had taken power for good, changes begun. First the state started tolerating partial community property, then divorce came. Nowdays, a couple may get married under full separate property regime. Yet, partial community property (post-marital shared property only) is still the standard (if there is no prior agreement between the nubents) but I don't know for how long this will last.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2020, 01:52:11 PM by Aulef »
Tota pulchra es, Maria
Et macula originalis non est in Te
 

Offline dymphnaw

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 401
  • Thanked: 226 times
Re: Separate property in marriage?
« Reply #164 on: December 23, 2020, 09:28:05 AM »
Having read this whole thread I can only congratulate the women who decided to never go on another date with the OP again. Sounds like their guardian angels saved them from a miserable relationship. A man who is mean with money is probably just mean  and  if a man sounds like a woman hater he probably is. RUN away girls.
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123, Blue Violet, FamilyRosary