Just here to vent!

[bklynbrat]

I reverted last year. My husband still attends his Non-denom. So now we go to two different churches.

We live paycheck to paycheck as I’m sure a lot of us do these days. When I’m at Mass whatever money I have on me, I put in the basket. Dh does pretty much the same thing at his church.

A few weeks ago, after he got home, he tells me that his church is growing soooo fast (there’s at least 12,000 members now), that the pastor wanted everyone to make a pledge on how much money everyone would be willing to give over the next 3 years so they can add an addition to the already existing building.

BTW this church also has a private elementary/jh school on the campus. The place is huge.

Here’s what DH has pledged: $3000

DH has a friend that’s in kind of tight at this church, and the friend was telling DH some of the **other **things the money was going to go towards. A new gymnasium, & running track for the school.

Here’s comes a few more 's on my behalf.

I think DH saw the steam blowing out of my ears. I asked him since we’re forking over $3000 how often can I use the gym & track??? No response

I told him I was hacked & that if he’s willing to donate $3000, to at least give the money to the poor!! I would have no problem whatsoever if that was the case.

OK I’m done ranting for now…

 

[Marsha_Adams]

What did your dh say when you told him to at least give the $3,000 to the poor?

Understand first of all that I am a maiden lady, so certainly don’t take any advice I may give on marriage. That being said, a few thoughts come to my mind. These are for you to think about, NOT for you to answer on the forum.

1. What per centage of his income equals $3,000 spread out over 3 years (which is roughly $21.00/week) ?
2. How much would the same per cent of your income be? Would he be comfortable with you giving the same amount to your Church?
3. What steps does he intend to take to reduce his expenditures in order to come up with his pledge? Carry his lunch to work? Give up his morning Starbucks? Forego his weekly lotto ticket? What?
4. Most denominations as I am sure you are well aware, expect such pledges to be ABOVE and beyond the individual’s current giving.
5. Living from pay check to pay check is a rough way to go, I know I’ve been there. For me, it was all my own fault because I didn’t have a budget of any sort. When there’s no money left, what is there to budget? SInce then, I have found that a budget does a lot of good, and that it is important to include God in the budget. You may have already done that, if not it’s just something to think about.
6. The Bible says, “Let not the sun go down on your anger” and “Be ye angry and sin not.” Now that you have vented, sit down and talk to your dh and work out the kinks on this issue.

 

[Magicsilence]

I reverted last year. My husband still attends his Non-denom. So now we go to two different churches.

We live paycheck to paycheck as I’m sure a lot of us do these days. When I’m at Mass whatever money I have on me, I put in the basket. Dh does pretty much the same thing at his church.

A few weeks ago, after he got home, he tells me that his church is growing soooo fast (there’s at least 12,000 members now), that the pastor wanted everyone to make a pledge on how much money everyone would be willing to give over the next 3 years so they can add an addition to the already existing building.

BTW this church also has a private elementary/jh school on the campus. The place is huge.

Here’s what DH has pledged: $3000

DH has a friend that’s in kind of tight at this church, and the friend was telling DH some of the **other **things the money was going to go towards. A new gymnasium, & running track for the school.

Here’s comes a few more 's on my behalf.

I think DH saw the steam blowing out of my ears. I asked him since we’re forking over $3000 how often can I use the gym & track??? No response

I told him I was hacked & that if he’s willing to donate $3000, to at least give the money to the poor!! I would have no problem whatsoever if that was the case.

OK I’m done ranting for now…

I might be badly placed, but $3000 over 3 years doesn’t sound like a ridiculous amount of money to me.

Although you might be angry, and the money could probably be better diverted, your DH is only giving to what he considers to be his Church. I’m sure the decision was just as hard for him, but it was still an act of Christian charity.

At least he is not spending $3000 on a fancy new TV or something you don’t need or want.

 

[bklynbrat]

I might be badly placed, but $3000 over 3 years doesn’t sound like a ridiculous amount of money to me.

No it’s $83 a month. What’s weird about that is that I decided to check around other insurance agencies on Friday to see if I can find cheaper rates than what I’m paying now on auto/house. Found one that would charge me $82 less a month.
Do ya think God’s hand is in this?

Although you might be angry, and the money could probably be better diverted, your DH is only giving to what he considers to be his Church. I’m sure the decision was just as hard for him, but it was still an act of Christian charity.

At least he is not spending $3000 on a fancy new TV or something you don’t need or want.

I know what you’re saying is true. And I’ve thought about it since writing my post, and I’ve calmed down since then.
Thanks for your help

 

[BillP]

I might be badly placed, but $3000 over 3 years doesn’t sound like a ridiculous amount of money to me.

$19.23 per week (tax free if you deduct)

 

[LuciaGdeLopez]

it sounds like the board helped a lot…you vented rather than blowing up on your DH.

 

[marietta]

This is the perfect argument for “his money”, “her money” and “their money”. Co-mingling funds leads to animosity. Money issues should be worked out and agreed-upon before anyone says “I do”. But romance always has a way of contaminating our ability to be our own best advocates as individuals.

If the $3,000 was saved jointly and the husband made a unilateral decision about how it should be spent, then he owes the wife $1,500. If the husband provides the sole income to the household, and if he is arrogant about how the money is to be spent, then the wife needs to renegotiate her place in the marriage.

The husband apparently is spending the money on something the wife doesn’t need. And why can’t the church get a bank loan, like any other business? One thousand dollars a year is a significant chunk of change, I don’t care what income bracket these people live in. Why does the church need to know right this minute how much each person is willing to cough up? What happens when cancer comes calling or a parishioner’s child needs surgery or somebody’s father needs to be moved into an expensive nursing home? What happens when these folks can’t make good on their commitments? Who’s left holding the bag when the church is 45 days into construction and the bottom falls out of the contributions?

This is a reckless way to do business. I would a) rescind the commitment, and b) run fast and run far.

marietta

 

[Marsha_Adams]

If the $3,000 was saved . . .

That’s the whole problem, the money hasn’t been saved, and since they are living pay check to pay check it never will be saved.

 

[bklynbrat]

That’s the whole problem, the money hasn’t been saved, and since they are living pay check to pay check it never will be saved.

Part of my issue besides the money (& since that’s been resolved as I stated earlier), is that money is going towards building a new gym & track for the school.
Let me say this, the school already has a gym & track. It’s also about 10 yrs. old. It’s not ancient. They just want to build something bigger & better.

The church is not shabby either. You should see the stage & light show they put on during “praise & worship”. It’s like seeing a major concert. It’s quite the show.

Dh said that the money was going towards adding on to the existing building to add more seating. Nothing was said about updating the school’s facilities.

I would’ve been more than happy to give the money if it was going towards helping the poor. That’s all.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I reverted last year. My husband still attends his Non-denom. So now we go to two different churches.

We live paycheck to paycheck as I’m sure a lot of us do these days. When I’m at Mass whatever money I have on me, I put in the basket. Dh does pretty much the same thing at his church. …

Here’s what DH has pledged: $3000 …

Part of my issue besides the money (& since that’s been resolved as I stated earlier), is that money is going towards building a new gym & track for the school. …
I would’ve been more than happy to give the money if it was going towards helping the poor. That’s all.

First of all, welcome back to the Catholic Church! I’m glad you feel better now that you vented, but I want to make a few points for you to consider. Your husband attends services there to help him grow in his faith, and he feels motivated to contribute more financially to it. God is generous and trustworthy. If we are generous with Him, He can multiply loaves and fish.

Your husband stepped out in faith and made a pledge that he put some thought into. Stepping out in faith is good. As my husband grew in faith in his old Protestant denomination, he began to tithe. That helped my husband develop both a spirit of generosity and better financial discipline. My husband is Catholic now. He often complains that the typical-Catholic-in-the-pew has a poor understanding of financial stewardship and speaks of how many Protestants understand stewardship much better. God is faithful. I think your husband started a good thing, and I think you should (at some point) discuss with your husband about making contributions to Catholic charities that help the poor.

 

[marietta]

I stand corrected: the money was not saved. That makes the gifting of $3,000 to the husband’s church without consulting the wife first even more reprehensible.

This doesn’t sound like a “pledge that he put some thought into”; it sounds like self-seeking, ego-driven behavior that has that capacity to completely corrode the foundation of the marriage.

Now, if the husband wants to take an additional job and earn the $19.23 per week that BillP suggests it will cost to make this gift, then there’s a solution that will make everyone happy (until bklynbrat wants to use the track).

marietta

 

[jman507]

Nah, everyone will be happy, when everyone is happy. Even in that solution, if DH has animosity regarding that, then he may very well be looking for a situation (even if he actually doesn’t care about it) to reciprocate the deal.

 

[marietta]

jman507:

" . . . a situation . . . to reciprocate the deal." What does this mean, exactly? Can you be more specific? I’m interested to know what point you’re making.

Thanks,

marietta

 

[gardenswithkids]

…This doesn’t sound like a “pledge that he put some thought into”; it sounds like self-seeking, ego-driven behavior that has that capacity to completely corrode the foundation of the marriage…

Marietta, are you married? Do you contribute financially to any religion? The original poster says she’s over this, but from your posts, I gather this bothers you quite a bit.

I agree that pledging $3000 is something that I would expect my husband to talk about with me, but your comments earlier about “co-mingling funds” and “the husband owes her $1500” and now “ego driven behavior that has the capacity to completely corrode the foundation of the marriage” seem very odd. You don’t seem to understand much about marriage or the process of “pledge drives” that many not-for-profit organizations conduct to estimate future donations. While organizations depend on people following through on the pledges they make, if someone honestly can’t make the payment because of some unforseen circumstance, then it’s okay. The op did well getting over this quickly.

 

[fellowChristian]

I go through this alot with my husband. I vent and vent (mostly to myself) then I get over it. There is nothing I can do to change the fact.

Would he take back the pledge? I think not. So if you complain and vent you just look like someone who doesn’t want to help God’s people. And if you say anything that makes sense then he just walks away feeling bad about himself but he still won’t take it back. It becomes a wedge. Don’t let it become a wedge!

You vented.Now pray.It’s just money.God will provide for you have faith. Support your husband he needs you.And if he does something that you think is stupid,breathe and choose your words carefully.Remember he thought he was doing something good.

 

[marietta]

gardenswithkids:

“The original poster says she’s over this.” Just for the sake of argument, let’s say she really is “over this”. If her husband continues to make financial decisions based on what his needs, desires or agreements are, without including her in the decision-making, then his behavior will continue to degrade the marital relationship. What respect has he shown for her or her church?
From the information given in her post, none. None at all.

Yes, it does bother me quite a bit when a woman has to repeatedly suck it up so her “man” can look and feel like a benevolent benefactor at the expense of his family’s economic security. And if she fails to hold him accountable for his “spirit of generosity”, as you call it, where will it end? Short answer: it will not.

“I would have been more than happy,” OP says, “to give the money if it was going towards helping the poor.” But it was not she who was giving in the first place, was it? You suggest that OP “discuss (at some point) with [her] husband about making contributions to Catholic charities that help the poor.” That point arrived *the very moment *she learned he had made such a significant pledge to the gym, the track, the whatever, of his church without her knowledge or consent. How long would you suggest she should have waited to address the issue with him?

One need not be married to understand imbalance in a partnership or disregard for a spouse. Money, and the mismanagement of it, is a prime factor in the dissolution of at least half of today’s marriages. So what makes my comments so “odd”? Should we just throw all the cash into one big pile and let them big, strong menfolk determine how it’s to be spent? No. This does not sit well with me. Wives need to have their own money. Again, hers, his and theirs. It’s an idea which is not complicated, illegal, fattening or sinful.

I understand pledge drives, and I understand marriage. I understand the pitfalls that are ahead when two people are not rigorously honest with each other (and I don’t mean after the fact). If you cannot see the potential for the demise of this relationship here, look again. This wife can’t do her part and his part, too. The husband has to step up and own up. Otherwise, is this a marriage at all?

marietta

 

[hasikelee]

He made a financial commitment without getting your enthusiastic agreement. To add salt to the wound, you view the cause as not worthy (a gym/track) and the commitment may place hardships on your marriage.

He needs to cancel his entire commitment and rewind.

www.marriagebuilders.com why not check out Dr. Harley’s book, “His Needs, Her Needs” where he outlines the policy of joint agreement. He also has a book, “Give & Take” that talks in depth about the importance of negotiation and enthusiastic agreement.

It doesn’t matter if hubby pledged $3 or $300,000. He did it without you.

 

[hasikelee]

A summary of his concept:

Basic Concept #9: The Policy of Joint Agreement
Marital instincts do not lead to fair negotiation. They either lead to giving away the store (state of Intimacy) or robbing the bank (state of Conflict). And in the state of Withdrawal, no one even feels like negotiating. Yet, in order to meet each other’s most important needs and avoid Love Busters consistently and effectively, fair negotiation is crucial in marriage.

You need a rule to help you override the shortsighted advice of your Giver and Taker. Their advice is shortsighted because regardless of the rule, someone gets hurt. We get hurt when we follow the Giver’s advice and our spouse gets hurt when we follow the Taker’s advice. So I’ve created a rule to guarantee that no one gets hurt, and that’s the ultimate goal in fair negotiation. I call this rule the Policy of Joint Agreement: Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement between you and your spouse.
Almost everything you do affects each other. So it’s very important to know what that effect will be before you actually do it. The Policy of Joint Agreement will help you remember to consult with each other to be sure you avoid being the cause of each other’s unhappiness.

It also makes negotiation necessary, regardless of your state of mind. If you agree to this policy, you will not be able to do anything without the enthusiastic agreement of the other, so it forces you to discuss your plans, and negotiate with each other’s feelings in mind. Without safe and pleasant negotiation, you will simply not be able to reach an enthusiastic agreement.

 

[jman507]

jman507:

" . . . a situation . . . to reciprocate the deal." What does this mean, exactly? Can you be more specific? I’m interested to know what point you’re making.

Thanks,

marietta

Oh what I mean is this, a solution that might seem fair, doesn’t necessarily mean it will be well received by all. If one person feels like they got the bad end of the deal, the person may just wait for the right time, and pull out the exact same argument against a purchase made by the other. Also possible is just to wait, try to get back the person in another way. If anything, even if it doesn’t lead to anything directly bad, it can lead indirectly to stain in the relationship.

A seemingly fair arrangement isn’t near as important as an arrangement that both are comfortable with and are relatively happy with. Part of that may be due to the terms of the arrangement, and another part is due to how the arrangement is made. Sometimes you cannot get there, and you’ll have to pick your battles wisely; some battles are not worth it, and some are essential.

The way I see it there are two different battles going on: one is just the straight financial aspect of it, and second deals with the feeling of security or insecurity of your financial footing. Personally I think both ought to be addressed, but it is best to avoid mixing the two at the same time. I’m guessing if you mix the logic of finances with the emotion of security, you both will end up upset. The money is not worth the strife, but you do need the money for security and stability.

I’m guessing if he starts to think your going to be arguing that he is “an impulsive, irrational idiot” it with money I doubt you’re going to get anywhere good. I don’t think you should not deny you are upset, that’s perfectly justifiable – you can feel how ever you want. You just don’t want your feelings to sabotage a solution. They do point you to something that needs to be addressed, but if someone feels emotionally blackmailed the relationship is strained.

On the financial front, you might do well to point out the econmic impact it will have on the family, and look at the options. It is also important to address at another time, both of your outlooks towards towards money. If you understand that if a few things happens you could easily get behind, that certainly is a justifiable reason to feel insecure. In that sense, you can help encourage him what steps he ought to do for good money managment. If you have an option between a postive approach (what to do) and a negative appraoch (what not to do), the postive approach should go better in a persuasive situation. You can understand better how he feels about it. In the end that ought, then you understand better how the other will take a situation, what battles to fight and avoid, and just a better understanding of what is acceptable.

 

[gardenswithkids]

**…**You suggest that OP “discuss (at some point) with [her] husband about making contributions to Catholic charities that help the poor.” That point arrived *the very moment *she learned he had made such a significant pledge to the gym, the track, the whatever, of his church without her knowledge or consent. How long would you suggest she should have waited to address the issue with him? …

I suggest she wait until their emotions calm down and cooler heads prevail**.** “Addressing the issue” in the heat of the moment often does more harm than good. I suggested a discussion, not an argument.

If the op’s husband took out a car loan or spent $3,000 on anything other that a religious donation, this would be a different story. Many people have addressed what they think about spouses making financial decisions without the other, but this was not simply about finances. This is a religious donation, and that makes it about religion. See the rest of my post below.

…The way I see it there are two different battles going on: one is just the straight financial aspect of it, and second deals with the feeling of security or insecurity of your financial footing. Personally I think both ought to be addressed, but it is best to avoid mixing the two at the same time. …

Yes, and I see a third potential battle: religious differences.

Their religious differences likely contributed significantly to this situation. When one spouse (or both) changes previously held views and behaviors, it changes the marriage too. The op began her post writing that she “reverted last year” back to the Catholic faith while her husband “still attends his Non-denom,” but now he wants to contribute more to it.

I’m a Catholic woman who married a Protestant man. My husband converted after several years of marriage, but that was never a “goal” of mine. However, I did desire that we share and grow in our Christian faith together, which we did. My husband grew a great deal in his faith at his old Protestant church, (that related to his tithing, as I noted in a previous post.) I compromised too much, stopped practicing my Catholic faith, but eventually I returned to the Catholic Church. My returning to the Catholic Church brought some issues to the forefront of our marriage. Eventually, my faith-filled Christian husband joined the Catholic Church.

The op might find it helpful to read (or listen to) conversion and “re-version” stories from Catholics, such a Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Every story is different, but I suspect the op’s reversion back to the Catholic Church shares some similarities. Both the op and her husband seem to be growing in their individual faith, (otherwise he probably would not want to contribute financially to his church and she would not have reverted.) Perhaps as they grow in faith, it sometimes may seem that they grow apart, but they must guard to keep that from happening. Let go of the hurt and anger that can result from minor (and even major) offenses. Support your husband to grow closer to Christ, even if that means giving some money because your husband feels called to give. Focus on what you share in common as Christians. Focus on Christ.