It may be shocking, but this is often what happens when people discover their monastic calling in adulthood. Buddha famously abandoned his wife and infant son when he decided to pursue his path.

Furthermore, some people have little contact with their children for even weaker reasons. The fact is that we are inclined to judge women harshly for actions which would hardly seem remarkable for, say, a male rock star.

Eh, Steve Jobs still gets shit around here for the way he treated his first daughter (and rightfully so).

Are you talking about Lisa?

Are you comparing Steve Jobs refusing to pay child support for His daughter to Buddha?

> The fact is that we are inclined to judge women harshly for actions which would hardly seem remarkable for, say, a male rock star.

I don't think this is true. Walk-out dads are judged very harshly by our culture too.

Her children would have been way past childhood by the time she became a nun... like way past.

But being a parent doesn’t end when the kid turns 18.

By the time the offspring is 30, parents are free to make decisions for themselves. At that point, many children themselves left miles away and have only sporadic contact due to living independently. Or joimed army. It is absurd to talk about it as if they were 5.

There is be way to become nun or monk without leaving your parents, siblings, friends, literally everyone.

Depends on which monastic order you join. Some are extremely strict.

Completely agree about "abandoning" your adult children.

That was unfortunate type. I wanted to write "no way"

Hm, and I wanted to write "some are strict, some are not". So there is a way to stay in contact with your family, you don't have to join a trappist order!

The part where you live to fulfill their needs does, though.

I would hope there is some middle ground between "live to fulfill their needs" and "seeing them twice in 30 years and never seeing your grandchildren".

I'd argue that fulfilling a child's needs is the bedrock to a more important parental goal — helping your children attain optimism in a world where many people lose.

Being religious is already enough though. Catholics attending mass are least likely to commit suicide amongst other outcomes

It doesn't for many patents. Many people draw meaning from life through their close relationships.

I'm not sure this is true, the prime minister of the United Kingdom is literally a deadbeat dad. He went to court to disown one of his children and it's not public knowledge how many children he actually has.

That's complete and utter rubbish. He's had several relationships, and is clearly a philanderer, but no-one has any idea of the nature of his financial or personal relationships with his children, because they're private. He went to court to try to preserve that privacy.

Which bit is rubish? You haven't refuted my points with anything of substance. He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections. He had an injunction on the McIntyre child, that sounds like disownment to me. "I love you, child, but nobody can know about you" He has no contact with any of his children apart from the new one, that's a deadbeat dad. We do not know how many children he has. Does he?

Of course he sees his children; there are plenty of documented occasions when he's been with them recently, and why would we know about the others?

Having an injunction on naming a child isn't disownment. It's protecting the privacy of the child. Name it, and now it needs police protection 24/7.

Your characterisation is way off track IMO, but it's a popular viewpoint on Twitter and in the Guardian.

> He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections.

That's rubbish. His public life has nothing to do with his private life. The fact that he is a politician doesn't mean the public has to know about his relationship with his children. His public actions speak loud enough for people to judge his quality (or lack thereof) as an elected official.

I think the cultural gap between American and European on this point will probably never be bridged.

> He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections.

Others have commented on how absolutely ridiculous and insane this is, but it also highlights one reason (among many) that we generally have such shitty politicians. If you believe that running in national elections should make every single aspect of your private life open to public scrutiny, don't be surprised if the types of people willing to run for public office only care about increasing their own power.

Eh, my mom's not 60 yet - but I wouldn't be mad at her if she did something like this (not that she ever would). I think parents are entitled to be individuals, especially if they've already fulfilled the core parental duties of raising their own children. They don't owe their kids anything else after that.

Parents have a responsibility when they create a child that doesn't disappear simply because that kid becomes an adult. If every 18 year old on the planet were left to their own devices, it would be an absolute disaster.

Catholic monastic orders aren't going to accept parents unless they can demonstrate they've already performed their religious duties to children. My guess would be the children were okay with it, and she had to show the order. Given her previous occupation, I doubt her children were left materially wanting

She did disappear, but if her kids were all doing fine, and the kids each had 9 siblings to turn of in case of trouble, I think she did her parental duty, and so why should she not follow her calling?

It sounds like she considered it for five years, most likely in communication with her children, and then decided to go ahead with the plan. Of the many things one could decide to do at age 60, this one doesn't sound too bad.

What do you mean? A lot of my friends and I gained independence at 18, and it was liberating for us. Not sure what disaster was supposed to ensue.

Independence yes, but complete independence in every way? Of course not. There is an offramping period, and for many, the benefits of familial bonds continue throughout life including things like a safety net in case you lose your job.

I'm sure you're really special.

Most 18 year olds aren't remotely ready for complete isolation from their parents, though.

I moved out at 18. I still remember phoning my dad about 3 months later panicking because I didn't realise that my gas and electricity bills were two separate things that had to be paid.

I was independent, buyi was definitely not ready for isolation.

Just as a counterpoint, moving out at 18 is the norm here in the Nordics, living with your parents when you're 22 is considered weird.

That's not a counterpoint.

We're talking about the US here. Most 18 year olds do not have the ability to acquire their own healthcare AND afford their own housing.

Even aside from that, when a young person starts a family for the first time, they often lean on their parents for advice because this is life experience they don't have and there are plenty of issues that someone without that experience would not anticipate.

This person did not revoke financial support from her kids. She revoked emotional support from them.

Sorry, but are we talking about finance or emotions? You're saying it's different in the US because of health care costs, but go on to say that she didn't revoke financial support, so finance seems a moot point.

With regards to emotional support, it sounds like her youngest child was close to 30, so I don't think that's a big issue. Of course it's nice to have contact with your mother even if you're 30, but it's a bit rich to suggest she "abandoned" her grown children. Presumably she discussed it with them first.

And most likely the kids married people that had at least one parent to get parenting advice from.

Since when has parenting been merely transactional? 30 year olds routinely get advice from parents as they progress through life. The entire world is largely better off for it. Wisdom is something best taken in small doses as required.

Of course it’s not transactional, that’s why i said that it’s nice to have a good relationship with your parents even as a grown up.

My only point is that it’s absurd to talk about “abandoning your children” when these children are close to and over 30!

I generally agree. Though we've sort of swung in the opposite direction it seems where parents will fail to instill an upbringing that doesn't end up with their kids being 35 and still at home. Also an absolute disaster by my estimation.

How does society help parents of 18 year olds with that tasks?

I see expensive college and unlike it used to be it is nowadays an open question wether you will recoup the cost. Military recruiters trying to "get" your kids. In some countries you can get paid therapy via health care.

When did you ever recoup your cost? Incomes held stagnant through the rise of college attainment, which means that there was no increase in pay to cover the cost.

Or, as a counterpoint, no they don't. 18 year olds are adults.

That isn't a counterpoint, and it's frankly ridiculous given any sort of actual consideration of the modern world.

Ok, when are people grown up?

They don't. But we often put on a good show.

Rich parents are very different. Imagine sending your children off to boarding school! But that’s seen as perfectly normal in rich people culture, and has been for centuries.

It sounds like you probably have a fairly healthy and loving relationship with your mother. Not all family relationships are that way whether at the fault of the parents, children or both. I recommend not projecting your family history on to others and judging them based upon it.

Some parents and some children don't deserve to be seen more than twice in 30 years. Some children should never suffer being exposed to their grandparents.

That doesn’t make the story any less tragic. To have 10 kids and not want to see any of them is beyond sad.

You realize there's a whole religious backdrop to this as well right? She seems like a faithful Catholic. If here children are as well, then they probably see nothing wrong with this. It's not about not wanting to see them, it's about wanting to live your calling more. It's like the Sound of Music, when Mother Superior tells Maria that loving Captain Von Trapp does not mean loving God less, but in reverse.

> To have 10 kids and not want to see any of them is beyond sad.

Monastic life is a sacrifice, in part because those who follow it do want to see their family etc. She felt that following Christ in a life of prayer separate from the world was what her heart most wanted, it was what God was calling her to do, and it was important for her salvation. You do not understand that but any faithful Catholic child would even though it is bittersweet for them too.

Try to remember, a mother, including yours, is just a girl with her own dreams.

> I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that, and I can’t imagine doing that to my kids.

Are you or your kids Catholic? I mean... some parents would be upset if their children decided to become vowed celibates, but if you're Catholic, and all your children decided to do this, you may be able to be happy. I am honestly shocked here that Hacker News is responding to this happening as if it is taking place in secular society, when the entire family seems religious.

Yeah, I think this fact shifts this story out of laudable territory for me. I think this is a really sad story.

> I would be pretty upset at my mom if she did that

I’m very surprised at this reaction. I feel like the right approach would be to respect her right to make a personal decisions.

You can both respect people right to make personal decisions and think these decisions are shit and affect their relationship with you negatively.

If my mother decided she was going to join not just a religious order but one of the most strict and one of the only ones preventing her to see us I would not be particularly happy about her choice.

Note that GP wrote about being upset at their mother, this seems different from what you’re describing?

> I would not be particularly happy about her choice.

This seems just being upset in general; which, I agree, isn’t inappropriate.

I get that too but as I get older I start “getting it” as to why people do what they do.

Doesn’t matter who they are to me, but life is complicated and ultimately it’s easier to just be understanding and let go.

She did see some grandchildren - tbh, with so many children, keeping track of every single one of their spawn would be hard even for a normal person.

Also, from back-of-envelop calculations, by the time she joined the convent her youngest child was in their 30s, the oldest in her 40s. It's not too different, in practice, from entering a hospice because of health issues.

Life does not revolve around a child, especially when you have several. Grandchildren even less.

A parent roamed the earth with their own desires and business long before a child came into the world. Children may feel they are the most important thing in a parent’s life because they are constantly fed, watered, and sheltered without fail, and they have known their parent their whole life. But a child is only a small phase of a parent’s life, a small piece of a larger plan, or sometimes no plan at all.

> Life does not revolve around a child

Of course it does - while they actually are children they should be your number 1 priority and the focus of all you do. But once they're adults it's a different story altogether.

I'm not torn at all. I find it reprehensible, and I am genuinely surprised that more of the comments here don't find that behavior horrible. There is nothing noble about having 10 kids, then cutting them out of your life once their other parent died. I mean, wtf.

> I find it reprehensible

I would imagine most people wouldn’t judge her if she was a firefighter who died in the line of duty because she “could have chosen a safer job.” This is because people generally appreciate this kind of sacrifice. Your attitude is based on the assumption that her sacrifice wasn’t worthwhile, well she thought it was and Catholics think it was. Her children were grown, she felt a calling from God, and ultimately it was her life.

I think this is the key point. My take on this situation is completely colored by my anti-religious views. I view her sacrifice as completely idiotic and worthless. But it’s clear she needed to do this. I can fake a lot of stuff for some amount of time for whatever particular reason- think along the lines of showing support for my wife. But I can’t sacrifice what she did for 3 decades without having that flame deep inside.

Firefighters actively invest in and protect their communities. Her choice was in diametric opposition- the complete severing of human ties outside of her own small world, even of those to her children.

I do not think this is a noble action. Certainly some will disagree with me. So be it, then we disagree.

I just cant find interpretation in which your outrage makes sense. 60 years old person leaving for monastery is somehow outrageous abandonment of her 30 years old offspring.

I dont know whether this is being edgy contrarian or sexism in which women dont get to make choices for themselve. HN contains plenty of those.

But projecting 5 years old thinking into her adult children is uttery absurd. Especially since I have never seen outrage over literally anyone else not being involved or leave for long or risks death when his kids are small.

Respectfully, it is neither of the presented options.

Something to keep in mind: I am the one who posted my opinion. Not the nebulous Hacker News gestalt. I, speaking just for myself, find parents willfully rejecting all of their children, at any age, to be ugly across the board. I would say the same if it had been the husband fleeing to a Monastic order, and I would say the same about (for example) Jobs' treatment of his first daughter.

I know we all form general ideas of how any particular forum will think. Boards have moods. But if we allow ourselves to see that impression as a person, of course we will be annoyed at the perceived inconsistencies and hypocrisies. But that is a false impression- those would only hold true if it were an single individual making such varied claims.

I don't know that we have enough information to judge her. I mean, she was a socialite; how close was she to her children? And, after all, she left each of them with nine siblings. I wish I had nine lifelong friends.

Why do we need to judge her at all?

I can only sympathise with the socialite renouncing the society that continues to criticise them; which in much of this entire thread amounts to judging her for not dedicating her entire life to motherhood.

Her grown-ass children will either be happy for her, or they'll be mourning their loss. Or maybe a mix of both. But they'll deal and life will go on.

I'm pretty comfortable judging the act of excising all of one's (ten!) children from one's life as being a shitty thing to do.

Even other cloistered orders allow letter-writing, and there are semi-cloistered orders where family can come visit any time. There is nothing about the act of becoming a nun that mandated her cutting of her connections to her children.

because your mom might have brought you up differently if she'd wanted to join a nunnery.