Son of Priest

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Since the death of my parents, I have learned that I am the biological son of the late parish priest and not the man I called "Dad." How could I go about finding his final resting place? Would it be appropiate for me to take flowers to his grave. I am not Catholic myself but would like to do this for my real father.

-- Broc (a1tebroc@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005

Answers

bump

-- bump (bump@bump.bump), February 02, 2005.

Broc,

How is your relationship with the man who raised you, the one you called "Dad"? If you don't mind me asking.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 02, 2005.


How "is" the relationship?

The gentleman is deceased. "Since the death of my parents," etc.

-- Unclear (???@???.???), February 02, 2005.


Broc:

"How could I go about finding his final resting place?"

Try internet searches for the Obitz in the last known area he may have been in. Often the newspapers will have these indexed on-line.

"myself but would like to do this for my real father."

Not to sound like an a$$, since you seem sincere but please consider Who your REAL father really was and honor him.

Either way I hope you find the peace and happiness you seek from your search.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 02, 2005.


Ask at the office of the last parish which you know he worked in. If they don’t know, ask them who you can ask at the diocesan office. (A diocese is the area controlled by a bishop, usually based in the nearest big city.) Unless he was a member of a religious order, he almost certainly spent his whole career in one diocese and was buried there. If he was a member of a religious order (Jesuits, Franciscans etc.) you should ask at the nearest house of that order (see phone directory).

Yes it would be perfectly appropriate for you to put flowers on his grave. However, IF I am right in assuming (1) that he was not married to your mother and (2) that the fact of his having had sexual relations with her is not generally known; you should avoid telling or implying this to anybody, or writing it in any card which you put with the flowers, to avoid giving scandal to other people who knew him and do not know of his sin.

It’s sad that you did not get to meet him in this life, but you can still pray for him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 02, 2005.



Michael G., you certainly don't sound like an ass; I'm sure all the adopted children and parents who have adopted children appreciate your comment. I know I do.

I also realize that many people who have never given much thought to these sorts of things use the word 'real' to indicate 'bilogical'. Is the person who helped you ride a bike, or helped you with your homework, or who put a bandage on your knee your 'real Dad'? Or is the physical act of procreation and the resulting DNA more important?

Of course there is no right and wrong answer; and many people find their answer changes as they journey through life's milestones. Of course others will find it a useful scapegoat for family ('family'?) problems, etc.. And many others find it wonderful example of defining 'family' based on love and experience, not animal/biology issues.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 02, 2005.


Now Steve, YOU sound like an ass!

Certainly you could have reworded your comment to NOT draw attention to the fact that Broc is, in many people's eyes, the result of a sin.

He came here trying to learn more about what he could do to learn and respect the ways of his biological father's religion and look what you taught him.

Your point is valid, but certainly you could have worded this better... "When searching for your biological father you should be aware that certain aspects of your story would greatly tarnish his reputation; perhaps call him a 'family member' rather than your father."

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 02, 2005.


Pat, you seem to be the one drawing attention to it, as well as “assuming” that there WAS any sin involved. I said “IF”. For all we know Broc’s father and mother may have been married. I always try to think the best of everyone in the absence of information to the contrary. When you “assume” the worst you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 02, 2005.

Steve, I agree, I didn't do a good job of paraphrasing. I will write all my responses in a text editor so that I can see the existing answers and not just the original question that is displayed when you hit the 'Contribute an answer'.

You DID say "IF I am right in assuming..." and I should have included that in my response.

I also agree that by commenting on it I've drawn more (and now MORE) attention to your statement; I thought of that and decided that cost outweighed letting the original comment go by. Silence is not always golden.

My appologies also to Broc, I have no hidden agenda here.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 02, 2005.


However, IF I am right in assuming (1) that he was not married to your mother and (2) that the fact of his having had sexual relations with her is not generally known; you should avoid telling or implying this to anybody, or writing it in any card which you put with the flowers, to avoid giving scandal to other people who knew him and do not know of his sin.

By this logic, children who were abused by priests were committing the sin of scandal by reporting their abusers.

It is no sin to acknowledge your biological father, even if it results in exposing his sin (again, assuming that there was sin on his part).

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.



Thanks to ALL who responded. You have confirmed for me that placing flowers or a similar gesture would be appropriate. For anyone wondering, I would never do anything to damage the reputation of this man. I am now aware of sacrafices he offered to make for my sake and that of my dear mother. Never would I proclaim that he fathered a child. I know that he helped my mother with finances and was on a friendly basis with my Dad. It is likely that I could could bring the situation to light and get a sum of money. That is not the values I learned as a child and I would never consider such. Again, thanks to all.

Brock

-- Broc (a1tebroc@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.


Best of luck to you Broc, you sound well prepared for this journey.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 03, 2005.

God bless you Broc and I hope you manage to find his resting place.

Mark, my logic does not imply that at all, and it is highly offensive of you to equate an act between two consenting adults with abuse of a child. Where abuse of a child DOES occur, it should be reported to the proper authorities; it could still be committing a sin of scandal to proclaim someone else’s sin to everyone you meet who doesn’t otherwise know of it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 03, 2005.


it is highly offensive of you to equate an act between two consenting adults with abuse of a child.

That would be offensive, but I did not do that. You can look up "equate" in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

I agree with you that it is wrong to "broadcast" the sins of others to everyone you meet. However, this is different than "covering up" the sins of others. The first is going out of your way to deliberately make sure that everyone knows of the sin. The second is going out of your way to conceal the sin, in effect making you an accomplice.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.


We should go out of our way to keep private the sins of other which we know about, except when doing so will endanger others. Obviously if someone has been molesting children or raping women or breaking into homes or mugging people on the street, that has to be reported without delay. However, if we learn that someone has committed adultery, there is usually no just reason to make that sin public.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 05, 2005.


Marriage is a PUBLIC SACRAMENT. ADULTERY MUST be exposed to the World, if the guilty party refuses to repent. Especially since the Catholic Church accepts it so readily.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), February 05, 2005.

Both Karl and Paul are right, depending upon the circumstances (yes I am a lawyer). Past adultery need not be pulled out and paraded around. Present adultery should not be condoned, even implicitly through silence.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), February 05, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ