Caught between ‘Doubt’ and Conviction.
John Patrick Shanley’s drama opens with the Roman Catholic priest Father Flynn asking his congregation “What do you do when you’re not sure?” We are in America in the year after the assassination of J K Kennedy, the first Roman Catholic President of the United States, and some of his parishioners may be asking themselves ‘if such a thing as this can happen to such a man as this is there a God in heaven?’ But to live with doubt is not to live alone, Father Flynn assures them.
This is an unashamedly didactic drama. It explores the tension between the comforting assurance of a man’s innocence and the driving conviction of his guilt. Sister Aloysius, Principal of the parish school, has encountered a child-abusing priest before and her suspicions that Father Flynn is grooming, if not abusing, one of her boy pupils soon hardens into certainty. Young Sister James on the other hand is eager to accept his explanations as proof of innocence.
What is the evidence? The boy, Donald Miller, is the only black pupil in the school, and we are told he has not made friends. There is some low-key bullying, but Father Flynn is his protector. He shows him a ‘special regard.’ Is this compassion or is he grooming the boy?
The boy has been called to the Rectory to see Father Flynn alone and returned upset. There was alcohol on his breath. An explanation is given – and verified - but are lies being told by the priest and the boy? Then there is the mystery of the vest; is the priest’s explanation sufficient?
Why does Father Flynn get so angry when Sister Aloysius says she has spoken to a nun in his former parish? Why does he insist that she should have only spoken to the new pastor there. Are the priests in league, covering each other? Is his anger a genuine response to her breach of protocol, or is he guilty?
Are Father Flynn’s appeals to Sister James that he is living out the love of Jesus genuine? Many abusers claim they are acting ‘ in love’.
At every point in the film the evidence is questionable, the responses ambiguous. We should all be left in doubt. There is no answer. I know of one couple who saw the original play, and were convinced of the priest’s guilt. Then the saw the film and were convinced of his innocence. In the film he is played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, an actor with great charisma, but abusers often have great charisma. And when Sister Aloysius confesses at the end that she has ‘such doubt’ we do not know if this is about the priests guilt, or more profound. Is she asking ‘if such a man as this, ordained by God, can do such things as these, is there a God in heaven?’
This is expertly constructed drama, adapted and directed by Shanley from his original play. It is well acted with Oscar nominated performances by Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams, and – for just one scene – by Viola Davis as the boy’s mother.
As a Child Protection trainer I would use it as a case study. What I would not do is make a judgement about guilt or innocence, and that is the film’s great value. It is comfortable to presume guilt or innocence, but often we need to live with doubt. As we wrote in one of the first Anglican Child Protection Guidelines ‘to suspect is not to judge’. Father Flynn asks, “What do you do when you’re not sure?” and the answer has to be ‘follow good child protection guidelines”. (The next training session on such guidelines will be on October 4th, 10 - 12.30 at St. Mary's, Bournespring Trust, Holdenhurst Rd, Bournemouth, open to all churches and secular groups working with children, youths or vulnerable adults.
