by Fr. Justin Swanton

 

Q. The Sacrament of Marriage is a union of heart, mind, body and soul. The couple pledge themselves with the words: “....to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.” Is not the ante-nuptial contract then the setting of a hair-crack in this union? Is it not the groundwork for future separation, or is it a blessing in disguise? What is the teaching of the Church on Marriage in community of property vs. the ante-nuptial contract?

A. The Church has made no official pronouncement on the question of community of property vs. the antenuptial contract, hence both are in themselves permissible to Catholics. In deciding whether to opt for community of property or the antenuptial contract, the couple must be clear about their motives for choosing one or the other.

In the past, almost all marriages were in community of property, an arrangement whereby all money, goods and property are shared equally by both spouses. This is the most natural arrangement, since it fosters marital unity, but it does make one spouse vulnerable to the financial liabilities of the other. In the event of bankruptcy, creditors can take the assets of both spouses, even if they were owned separately by them before the marriage.

With the antenuptial contract, all goods, property and money belonging the spouses before the marriage, and all that they acquire after contracting marriage, remain in their separate possession, and the one spouse cannot legally exercise any sort of claim on the goods of the other. Antenuptial contracts include the disposal of property in the event of a separation, hence they can undermine the indissolubility of marriage by making legal separation materially easier.

Is there any reason justifying the signing of an antenuptial contract? Today we live in a world in which it is increasingly difficult to make a reliable and stable income. Gone are the days of set careers where a man could walk into a company in his twenties reasonably certain that he need not walk out of it until retirement age. It is very difficult at present, especially if one is supporting a family, to avoid contracting debts that require a stable employment for their repayment. One one needs a house, one may need a car, and it is usually impossible to buy them cash down. Hence it is very possible, even for someone who is diligent and prudent, to find himself in a situation of real financial trouble. In such a situation, signing an antenuptial contract will be seen to have been the prudent course, in order to limit material hardship to the family as much as possible. But it must be clear that a couple signed the antenuptial contract for that reason and for no other.