Help me understand this

[Burt_Macklin]

The OP in his post clearly states that he helps the daughter and her husband pay for rent and utilities. Rent and utilities! While the OP would like his grandkids to have nice things, their parents (his daughter and son in law) are not even providing a place to live for the children.

Do people really think this couple is being responsible? If the father stopped providing support, the family could be homeless. How is this right?

It could be that providing rent and utilities frees up money for them to spend on entertainment. Maybe if he stopped with the support they would figure out a way to pay for things on their own.

 

[The_Bucket]

It could be that providing rent and utilities frees up money for them to spend on entertainment. Maybe if he stopped with the support they would figure out a way to pay for things on their own.

Quite right. Or get SNAP and other assistance to free up on the food budget so they can pay rent and utilities.

You’re not going to get put out on the street in this country. Might you need to move into Section 8 housing? Maybe. Would that be lame? Yeah. But it might be necessary too. And then they’d understand the relative prudence of having so many kids.

That’s not cruelty. That’s letting his daughter and son-in-law be actual adults.

 

[Rico_S]

Perhaps a better place to look for help would be to talk to a priest. Make an appointment with one at a local parish (not your daughter’s). He can better explain the Church teaching on marriage, responsible parenthood, child spacing, etc, and can probably give you a better insight into her thinking. In the end, though, it is her marriage and ultimately their decision.

I feel for you, though.

My inlaws have a daughter (not my wife) that has always made fairly poor life decisions–especially ignoring the economic impact of those decisions. But they have always been there to bail her out each and every time… removing the economic impact of her decisions. They have become a bit meddlesome in her affairs, imo but I sort of get why they feel that way. I know they love her and only want the best for her and her kids. What I think they miss is that all along, they have essentially enabled her to continue making these choices by sheltering her from consequences.

I have no idea what I would do with my own daughter in this situation. It is easy for me to say to stop helping them out financially…not sure I could do that.

 

[mommamaree]

But what I will say in my defense is that I do not dislike my grandchildren! In fact, I adore each one and if there ARE 20, I will adore them all. But the point is that there doesn’t have to be 20.
Four is not twenty, and your attitude about four suggests that it will be hard to adore twenty, because you already object to the four she has already had.

I worked very, very hard to provide a nice life for my family.
stuff
I had three girls and I paid for each of them to go to Catholic (and other private, non Catholic) schools,
stuff
I covered music lessons so each is able to play an instrument.
stuff
I covered college
stuff
and I paid for lovely weddings for the older two and plan to do the same for our youngest.
stuff
I even paid for the wedding that was in the Catholic Church, even though that is not our faith. I also spent lots of time with each of my girls, coaching soccer teams, taking them on campouts, playing basketball in the yard, teaching them to ride bikes…
best statement so far…I see lots of TIME together being valued
What I fear is that my daughter has been “caught” in a situation where my son in law sees her as needing to have continuous babies. I don’t know why the term “rapid fire” hit such a nerve, because I do think that having a kid every 18 months is pretty rapid! I don’t even think she’s allowing her body and mind to heal between pregnancies. It’s just… on to the next.
Rapid fire is an offensive term because babies are not bullets, and pregnancies are not weapons.
Asking me which kid I would rather her not have had is silly. I love each one, as does my wife. But it is very hard to see my daughter adopting this bizarre mindset at the behest of her husband WHO DOES NOT EARN A DECENT LIVING.
What do you mean by this?
Now, if he made good money, bought his family a home and they didn’t have to scrimp by,
What is wrong with renting and scrimping? Again a focus on stuff
AND it was HER idea to have 10 kids - fine. But this is his religion telling them that “God only sends what people can handle.” And frankly, I just don’t believe that mentality. We have to work for what we want, we make our own luck, and we can’t say that God “sends us” good things, while he only “allows” bad things. It’s one or the other. It’s cute to think that God “sends us babies” like some otherworldly stork, but in fact babies are, as many pointed out, a result of a physical act. If we don’t do the act, no babies. God doesn’t decide to send them anyway!

This is her religion, too. The conception of each and every human being involves God creating their individual, unique and irreplaceable immortal soul, meant to spend an eternity with Him in heaven. So God does send us babies, just as He is the bestower of all blessings, and yes, God does allow evils to occur in our lives. This is Christianity 101.

So I think people need to be prudent. We live in the society we live in, not rural Africa and not 1930. My daughter is so smart and talented. I am not saying she should be a working mom or support her family (my own wife stayed home for 15 years to raise the girls), but she should fulfill her potential and not just throw away her dreams - and they were HER dreams - just so that she can provide her husband with endless children.

So her dreams changed. Mine did, too. And then they changed again when I converted to Catholicism.

my responses in purple

 

[mommamaree]

I do not have a problem with larger families at all, but when you see your child throw away her dreams and just adopt someone else’s idea of what a “good wife and mother” is and does, it’s very upsetting.

You have demonstrated that you do have a problem with larger families if the number of children in the family reduces the amount of stuff the family members can enjoy. And again, you are asserting that these are her husband’s ideas and not her own. Unless she is being forced to do something against her will and you have evidence of that or she turns to you for help, you have no right to assume that her husband has coerced her into anything. Honestly, a lot of what you say sounds like you are trying to vent about your SIL, and are angry at him for being the cause of your daughter not being whom you thought she was going to be.

I will never stop helping them financially because I can’t bear to see them live that way.

Are they asking for your help? Or are you taking it upon yourself because you believe that they should be living differently than they choose? What exactly about their circumstances bothers you?

And, truth be told, I will probably work until I am 80 so that I can provide her kids with everything I provided for my children.

stuff

You can’t get ahead in this world without opportunities, and as holy as she might want to raise these kids, they still need a good education, athletic programs and music training, or whatever other pursuits the kids might find themselves drawn to. That is just reality, like it or not. This isn’t Little House on the Prairie.

Nope, that is just stuff. A good education can be had at home, or a combination of public school and at-home lessons. Outdoor play and exercise are important. Organized athletic programs are optional. Music training is optional. Your view of what reality is is actually very materialistic.

Anyway, I more than anything want to understand why Catholics might feel like they will just get pregnant at every single opportunity. I did not think that Catholics were that way, like the Duggar parents.

I am a Catholic, and I actually like the Duggars. They were not irresponsible with their procreation, either, so holding them up as a poor example is inappropriate. They are extremely prudent and responsible parents, who have taught their children how to do more with less, and how to build wealth in a Christian fashion while never sacrificing their principles and never putting stuff before people. If a Catholic family wanted to be like the Duggars and have a large family, I don’t see why that would be a problem at all.

my responses in purple

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am glad that you posted again. A couple of things stood out to me. You mention that you paid for Catholic and non Catholic schools. If you send your child to a Catholic school and pay for a Catholic wedding you should not be surprised when her values and theology turn out Catholic. And you should at least be proud that she thinks enough of God and her faith to follow it.

But this is his religion telling them that “God only sends what people can handle.”

Two things here. First of all, it is not “his religion” it is hers and she seems to be more devout in her christianity than you are used to. Second. His religion does not teach this. It is not in the teachings of the Church which you should probably learn about. (I will get to that later)

So I think people need to be prudent. We live in the society we live in, not rural Africa and not 1930

Basic Christian theology would state that morality is not changed by one’s economic status and/or time period. God is the God of the poor and of the future and of the past. His laws and morality reign supreme. In africa it is immoral for a person to murder, even to eat. Same in America.

but she should fulfill her potential and not just throw away her dreams - and they were HER dreams - just so that she can provide her husband with endless children.

They may have been “her dreams” but now they are just yours. I’m betting her dreams involve her wonderful family.

Anyway, I more than anything want to understand why Catholics might feel like they will just get pregnant at every single opportunity. I did not think that Catholics were that way, like the Duggar parents.

The Church does not teach this. There may be some Catholics who feel that way but on the flip side there are some Catholics who think ABC and abortion are ok too. That does not change the Church or Her teachings.

I urge you to pick up a pamphlet regarding the Catholic teaching of life. Also look up Humanae Vitae (don’t worry it is in English) to further understand marriage and family in regards to Jesus and His Church. You will find that being open to life does not mean what you are ascribing to an entire religion. It is sad that you can send kids to a Catholic school and yet there is still so much they and you do not understand. I see that you provided a very good financial life for your kids. Perhaps your daughter is providing a rich spiritual life for hers.
But to be blunt sir, with all your misplaced frustration and misunderstandings, you will lose her and your grandkids be it 20 or 4 no matter how much money you give them if you keep insisting on this attitude.

What is your solution sir? Birth control? Abortion? Abstinence? NFP? What? Do you have a Christ centered solution to this? Or do you just have a materialistic one?

How do you wish her to stop having children? Do you wish to tell her when she is to be intimate with her husband or what he wears on his private parts, or what hormones she takes? What did you do? And can you see that it is probably not in the bounds of her faith. ANd actually any Christian faith period. Sorry if that cones across as MYOB but it is relevant because honestly, MYOB is what your should be doing when it comes to the daughter and her sex in the marriage bed.

 

[holyrood]

No, he is choosing to insult his son in law and criticize his daughter

I thought the same. His giving is telling his son in law he’s not good enough.

The OP in his post clearly states that he helps the daughter and her husband pay for rent and utilities. Rent and utilities! While the OP would like his grandkids to have nice things, their parents (his daughter and son in law) are not even providing a place to live for the children.

Do people really think this couple is being responsible? If the father stopped providing support, the family could be homeless. How is this right?

We don’t know any of this based on OP’s post. As Burt says:

It could be that providing rent and utilities frees up money for them to spend on entertainment. Maybe if he stopped with the support they would figure out a way to pay for things on their own.

Is he paying rent and utilities every single month, or now and again when a storm has just ripped their roof off and destroyed their car, or somewhere in between? Does ‘help’ mean twenty dollars or the full amount? Is he helping with rent and utilities on their one bedroom apartment in a poor neighborhood that his son in law still can’t afford, or is he helping with rent and utilities on their five bedroom, gated community McMansion because they want to live there, above the means of the average 20-something? Is he helping with rent and utilities on a gated community McMansion because he himself wouldn’t accept the place they chose that was within their means? Is he perhaps helping with rent and utilities because this young couple is feeling pressured to provide music and sports they can’t currently afford to young children? Or to live the lifestyle her father obviously values, when they can’t currently afford it?

I’m not saying any of the last are true, but rather that there is a great deal we really don’t know. I know that at 29, I had 5 children, my husband had a blue collar job, and we owned a home. No, it wasn’t as fancy as what my dad owned, but you know what, it was fine, the roof didn’t leak, we were happy there.

Furthermore, what seems to be missing from this conversation is the awareness that this is still a relatively young couple. Being young and not having a whole lot of money is a pretty common stage of life.

 

[haedron]

No, he is not part of their marriage, end of story.

He is choosing to give them money. He is very clear that he wants the grandchildren to have ‘stuff,’ as others have said. He’s concerned about what he has decided is the necessary minimum standard.

We don’t actually know that this couple is relying on him.

I personally think it would be better for this young couple if he stops giving them money. He’s teaching them, whether he intends to or not, that they can’t do it on their own. He’s also teaching them, if his posts here are anything to judge by, that his money gives him the right to treat them like children.

I speak from experience. My father was very generous, but it came at that exact cost. I realized how much his behavior was actually *undermining *my belief in my own ability to care for myself.

If he gives, it must be with no strings and no lectures. If he doesn’t like the way they live, he must stop subsidizing them. They WILL be able to take care of themselves.

Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more.

This man’s adult daughter and her family can’t afford rent or basic utilities without assistance from both the government and her father. It doesn’t matter that he says he won’t cut her off.

And don’t misunderstand me - the issue isn’t that the daughter keeps having kids, it’s that she keeps having kids that she can’t afford to care for.

He absolutely gets a say, and I think he’s expressing a perfectly reasonable concern. I’m also not saying that his daughter should stop having children. I’m suggesting she should stop having children until she and her husband are capable of providing for the ones that they have.

To be honest, I think that I should have a say in their family. After all, my tax dollars are subsidizing her irresponsible behavior.

 

[holyrood]

I see that you provided a very good financial life for your kids. Perhaps your daughter is providing a rich spiritual life for hers.
But to be blunt sir, with all your misplaced frustration and misunderstandings, **you will lose her and your grandkids **be it 20 or 4 no matter how much money you give them if you keep insisting on this attitude.

The more I read in this thread, I think it hits home, because this could be my dad writing about me, 15, 20 years ago.

My father provided a good financial life for me. Hoosier Daddy nailed it: I’m choosing to provide a rich spiritual life for my children, first and foremost. It is infinitely more important. My family of origin was quite comfortable financially. We were not happy.

And my parents have entirely lost me and largely lost access to their grandchildren exactly because of their critical attitudes, very similar to what you’re here telling the world about your daughter. Your daughter or son in law, or both, will eventually have enough of being spoken of and regarded this way.

 

[holyrood]

Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more.

This man’s adult daughter and her family can’t afford rent or basic utilities without assistance from both the government and her father. It doesn’t matter that he says he won’t cut her off.

And don’t misunderstand me - the issue isn’t that the daughter keeps having kids, it’s that she keeps having kids that she can’t afford to care for.

He absolutely gets a say, and I think he’s expressing a perfectly reasonable concern. I’m also not saying that his daughter should stop having children. I’m suggesting she should stop having children until she and her husband are capable of providing for the ones that they have.

To be honest, I think that I should have a say in their family. After all, my tax dollars are subsidizing her irresponsible behavior.

No, we really don’t know what they can afford. See my previous post discussing the various scenarios that could be covered by “I help them with rent and utilities.”

I find it odd that we are lectured by liberals to support Obamacare out of compassion, and yet when a family is using government subsidized health care, they’re called irresponsible. (Not saying you’re a liberal, just commenting on the dichotomy of a society that pushes to have it available and then criticizes people for using it.)

I’m really interested in how this man gets a say in her reproductive life. Does he get to stand by the bed and supervise to make sure his son in law is wearing a condom? Should he go to the doctor with his daughter to make sure she starts taking hormones as per his marching orders? Should he chart her body temperature and mucus with her and remove her from the home to prevent sex when he doesn’t want another grandchild?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The OP in his post clearly states that he helps the daughter and her husband pay for rent and utilities. Rent and utilities! While the OP would like his grandkids to have nice things, their parents (his daughter and son in law) are not even providing a place to live for the children.

Do people really think this couple is being responsible? If the father stopped providing support, the family could be homeless. How is this right?

So what? in America the family could not really be homeless without serious mental issues. Not only that but if the father gets a say about their sexuality and procreation then so does the government right? Because they pay for all our kids really. Think about it. I have four kids. We homeschool so lets see how much money we are saving YOU (the taxpayer) by doing this. It costs about 5000 dollars to educate a child a year in public school. lets just do through High school. 60,000 per kid and I have four kids. 240,000 Four kids will cost 240,000 of money to educate to the end of highschool. Think about that. That is not counting the tanks to keep them free or the roads they drive on or the libraries they might visit. We are all on government assistance my friend. And it is voted in.
We live in the midwest. My wife makes more money than 90 percent of people in the USA. Get that? 90 percent. Those stats are probably pretty close to people that post on these boards as well. So chances are she makes more money than you or the OP. We struggle to pay utilities sometimes. UTILITIES! My second daughter was born with a genetic defect. Over 200,000 dollars in medical bills. We did not qualify for medicaid financially but we did because she was classified as developmentally delayed. We would have bankrupt because of it. We are all on some sort of assistance. Even you. I will bet you that every single person posting on these forums take more from the government than they put in.

All of that and we have not even touched the idea that morality and procreation as a command from God have to be uniform across all time and monetary situations. Is it moral for us, a family that earns more than probably 99 percent of Catholics Worldwide to have another (5) child? Just as moral as it is for a Chadean Catholic in Iraq to get married and have a child in a poor war torn country with rampant persecution. Pope Francis is the Pope of the poor, better get on board even if it goes against your right wing flag waving conservative American values. (which by the way I share with you.)

Theology, faith and God, trump my political ideology and my citizenship. Always.

 

[holyrood]

To be honest, I think that I should have a say in their family. After all, my tax dollars are subsidizing her irresponsible behavior.

It’s your opinion only that her behavior (having sex with her husband! EGAD!) is ‘irresponsible.’

If you don’t want to subsidize her children, vote against social programs that do so. Again, I find it odd how many people push these programs through, calling themselves more compassionate, and then call names of the people actually using them.

I’m curious if you’re happy subsidizing Sandra Fluke’s sex life by providing her with birth control.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

To be honest, I think that I should have a say in their family. After all, my tax dollars are subsidizing her irresponsible behavior.

And mine is subsidizing yours.

Actually our tax dollars are also buying aids medication and condoms for homosexuals and bombs for the military and abortions for african american women.

I think her decision to make a future taxpayer and citizen is quite moral in comparison.

 

[haedron]

No, we really don’t know what they can afford. See my previous post discussing the various scenarios that could be covered by “I help them with rent and utilities.”

I find it odd that we are lectured by liberals to support Obamacare out of compassion, and yet when a family is using government subsidized health care, they’re called irresponsible. (Not saying you’re a liberal, just commenting on the dichotomy of a society that pushes to have it available and then criticizes people for using it.)

I’m really interested in how this man gets a say in her reproductive life. Does he get to stand by the bed and supervise to make sure his son in law is wearing a condom? Should he go to the doctor with his daughter to make sure she starts taking hormones as per his marching orders? Should he chart her body temperature and mucus with her and remove her from the home to prevent sex when he doesn’t want another grandchild?

This is from the OP:

“We have to help them with rent and utilities all the time and the kids are on government health care.”

I have my opinions about Obamacare, but they aren’t germane to the discussion. The point is that these people couldn’t provide a basic existence for 3 children without assistance. Then they went and got pregnant with child # 4 anyway. In what reality can that even remotely be considered good judgement?

And as far as him having a say in their reproductive life - I think the fact that he is providing basic needs for his grandchildren gives him every right to question his daughter and son in law and recommend that they quit having babies. Do they have to listen? Of course not, but as far as I’m concerned the fact that he’s supplementing their income gives him every right to question their decisions - especially when the do stupid stuff like get pregnant again.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is from the OP:

“We have to help them with rent and utilities all the time and the kids are on government health care.”

I In what reality can that even remotely be considered good judgement?

I any reality where one receives any help from family or the society be it monetary or physical or emotional. I have never met a person who did not have a child and did not need assistance. Did you go to public school? Drive on roads? Enjoy community services? I guess your parents made a bad judgement on the night you were born then.

 

[haedron]

It’s your opinion only that her behavior (having sex with her husband! EGAD!) is ‘irresponsible.’

If you don’t want to subsidize her children, vote against social programs that do so. Again, I find it odd how many people push these programs through, calling themselves more compassionate, and then call names of the people actually using them.

I’m curious if you’re happy subsidizing Sandra Fluke’s sex life by providing her with birth control.

I’m not happy with any of it. It’s a false dichotomy to assume that I might support one but not the other.

She already has 3 children she can’t provide for. Then she decided to have another one and has indicated she has no plans to stop. If she were my daughter, I’d be extremely concerned as well. And again, I’m not suggesting she should never have any more children, but it’s obvious that she and her husband need to consider setting some of their other affairs in order before digging the hole any deeper.

Note that I’m not advocating they do anything against Catholic teaching, and honestly it’s not even a religious issue anymore. I don’t think it ever really was - that’s a red herring. It’s about a lack of common sense or personal responsibility on the part of the OP’s daughter.

 

[holyrood]

This is from the OP:

“We have to help them with rent and utilities all the time and the kids are on government health care.”

Yes, I read that, and I addressed that.

We don’t know if he ‘has to’ or chose to.

We don’t know if he ‘has to’/chose to because the son in law can’t afford even a one-bedroom apartment in a slum, no matter how much they tighten their belts, or if he ‘has to’/chose to because they want to live in a McMansion, or if he ‘has to’/chose to because he himself doesn’t approve of the middle class house they can afford, and insisted they move into something bigger and fancier in an upscale neighborhood.

Given OP’s emphasis on things, music lessons, sports, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this has something to do with spending choices, rather than true ability to put a roof over their heads and feed their children.

We don’t know if he ‘has to’ help with rent and utilities now and again when there’s been an unexpected crisis, or if he does so once a year. We don’t know if ‘help’ means twenty dollars here and there, or the full rent and utilities every month, year after year.

And again, I find it a little ironic that it’s often the same people who push for more and more government spending on social programs, calling themselves compassionate, who then criticize people–and usually only certain people, like people with a politically incorrect number of children–for being on those programs. It sounds like the son in law does have a job, so frankly, therefore, he’s being taxed to pay for that government health care he’s now using.

I believe there’s a quote pointing out that if you want to control people, ‘give’ them health care. Some of the thoughts in this thread prove it. First some people are kind and compassionate enough to ‘give’ health care to everyone (with those people’s money, of course, but that’s a different issue), and then proclaim their right to make private and moral choices for everyone else, because after all…“I’m subsidizing you.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is from the OP:

And as far as him having a say in their reproductive life - I think the fact that he is providing basic needs for his grandchildren gives him every right to question his daughter and son in law and recommend that they quit having babies. Do they have to listen? Of course not, but as far as I’m concerned the fact that he’s supplementing their income gives him every right to question their decisions - especially when the do stupid stuff like get pregnant again.

If providing monetary support gives you this right. Then the government should do the same. As should our country to other countries we help out.

Geesh if only we could just tell those pesky poor people in africa to stop having sex and getting married. Even the Catholic ones.

 

[PaulinVA]

So what? in America the family could not really be homeless without serious mental issues.

Not following this. People with no mental issues find themselves homeless. Yes they do.

We are all on government assistance my friend.

Interesting idea, but not true.

We live in the midwest. My wife makes more money than 90 percent of people in the USA. Get that? 90 percent. Those stats are probably pretty close to people that post on these boards as well. So chances are she makes more money than you or the OP.

Uhm, no. I don’t know about the OP.

We struggle to pay utilities sometimes. UTILITIES! My second daughter was born with a genetic defect. Over 200,000 dollars in medical bills. We did not qualify for medicaid financially but we did because she was classified as developmentally delayed. We would have bankrupt because of it. We are all on some sort of assistance. Even you. I will bet you that every single person posting on these forums take more from the government than they put in.

Well, the government does deficit spend. But, I doubt that we are all getting more than we put in. And, no, we are not all on some sort of “assistance”. I have not gotten anything from the government I have not earned. We don’t ever seem to qualify for anything. Which I guess is a blessing.

Pope Francis is the Pope of the poor, better get on board even if it goes against your right wing flag waving conservative American values. (which by the way I share with you.)

I love the Pope. I am awestruck by his humility. But, I don’t think we know his opinion on this specific case of this specific family.

 

[holyrood]

I’m not happy with any of it. It’s a false dichotomy to assume that I might support one but not the other.

She already has 3 children she can’t provide for. Then she decided to have another one and has indicated she has no plans to stop. If she were my daughter, I’d be extremely concerned as well. And again, I’m not suggesting she should never have any more children, but it’s obvious that she and her husband need to consider setting some of their other affairs in order before digging the hole any deeper.

Note that I’m not advocating they do anything against Catholic teaching, and honestly it’s not even a religious issue anymore. I don’t think it ever really was - that’s a red herring. It’s about a lack of common sense or personal responsibility on the part of the OP’s daughter.

As I’ve said several times, we don’t know that she ‘can’t provide for them.’ We have ONLY the father’s side of the story, and he obviously values a very high standard of living, such that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that ‘can’t provide for them’ really means she can’t afford music lessons and sports. That perhaps she and her husband are being pushed to live above their current means. That perhaps he ‘has to’ help with rent because they’re being pushed to live above their means.

I really seriously have my doubts that this woman and her husband are living in a one-bedroom dump in the ghetto with a leaky roof, cutting corners everywhere they can and he still has to help pay for even that.