As the movie continued, I began to look for evidences confirming his guilt. When I saw Sister James noticing how Father Flynn left Donald's shirt in his locker, I thought this confirmed my expectation. I believed Father Flynn was guilty. When Sister Aloysius suggested that this was something one could expect from lonely priests, in her first discussion of the incident with Sister James, I thought the case was closed.
As the story unfolded -- Father Flynn's confidence in his innocence and his ability to explain his treatment of children, especially in a conversation with Sister James who believes that Father Flynn's explanation is adequate and convincing -- I began to doubt. Nevertheless, I kept looking for evidences that would prove Father Flynn's guilt. Sister Aloysius's discussion with Donald's mother...
As Sister Aloysius confessed to Sister James that she has doubts about her righteousness, I had my doubts again.
It is clear to me now that confirmation bias played an important role in my judgment of Father Flynn when I was watching this film. Rather than analyzing the evidences from a neutral and critical perspective, I kept expecting that Father Flynn's guilt would be confirmed by the end of the film. Now, I see that there is no hard evidence proving his guilt or innocence. It is possible that Father Flynn was sincere in what he said and that he was genuinely caring for
children by treating them as his friends. He might as well be a child molester. I do not -- and more importantly, I cannot -- know it by looking at the evidences presented in the film. The moral of the film seems to be that we should not rush to accuse a person of anything by relying solely on our guts and feelings. Rather, we should search for evidences that may prove the person's guilt or disprove our convictions and try to find out the truth in an unbiased manner.
