Doubtless Bigots
Doubt has won the Pulitzer Prize. The playwright, John Patrick Shanley, says
People who have great certainty can be a force of good, but can also be incredibly destructive.
He is speaking, presumably, of Sister Aloysius, the grade-school principal who engineers the removal from her parish of a popular priest because she is convinced that he is molesting a shy, intelligent boy. Kathleen and I were absolutely captivated by Doubt, and absolutely devoid of the eponymous feeling. We were as sure as Sister Aloysius. Everything about the play, from Father Flynn's dodginess to the boy's mother's pleas to the younger nun's misgivings, convinced us that Sister Aloysius was right. If necessary, she was prepared to be "incredibly destructive."
In light of Mr Shanley's remarks, it's clear that either I'm a bigot or he hasn't written the play that he thought he has. Probably the former, because many people have seen the play and come out wondering. Kathleen and I have wondered if their heads were screwed on properly. We've wondered if only kids who went to Catholic grade schools can really understand nuns like Sister Aloysius, or priests like Father Flynn.
The way other people wondered how anybody, anybody, could admire, or even support, Bill Clinton. The way we wonder how anybody could dream of voting for George W Bush.
Yeah, we're bigots.
Comments
I understand how people can regard Sister Aloysius as the villain in Doubt. Indeed, I saw her that way at the outset of the play when she chides the younger nun for teaching because of "emotion" and a "flair for the performance". I knew a few nuns like Sister Aloysius- more intelligent, well educated and refined- but nonetheless as opposed to emotion and creativity in teaching grade schoolers. I hated that approach.
To me, the fascinating thing about Doubt was the way it made me question my assumptions founded on prior experiences. I listened and watched the characters with great intensity: I wanted Sister Aloysius to be the stand-in for all that was wrong with the pre-Vatican II Church. As the play progressed, I found that I began to shift from looking at Sister Aloysius through my 7th grader's eyes to listening to her through my adult ears. Nevertheless, I wanted Father Flynn to be the good guy; even when there were some questionable moments I gave him the benefit of doubt. I put my nagging unease down to the fact that Father Flynn was simply guilty of teaching with "emotion" and "a flair for the performance".
Much to my surprise,and contrary to my general feelings, habits of mind and pro-underdog outlook, by the end of the play, I was utterly convinced of Sister Aloysius' concerns and fears. For me, the lynchpin scene occurred when she described watching the boys' reaction to Father Flynn while standing in line on the first day of school...literally a visceral distaste... which she experienced as an unconscious, and therefore powerful, communication.
And so, at the end of the play, I found myself reflecting about how the nuns at such time and in such circumstances were powerless to right the wrongs done to school children...is it so even today? The best solution was to move a Father Flynn to another position. Hence, I think that the play's title refers to Sister Alyosius' doubt: in doing the right thing for her pupils did she create a larger evil for a wider group of the faithful? That question is unanswered, as I beleive it should be, leaving all of us to wonder what we would do in similar circumstances.
Posted by: Kathleen | April 5, 2005 01:53 PM
The first thing I thought when I saw that quote was of Mr. Bush and his damned 'great certainty.'
Posted by: PPOQ | April 5, 2005 03:10 PM
Apparently, 51% of America thought that Bush should have kept his yapper shut about the Schiavo case. I don't see any front page headlines about a "mandate from the people." Selective hearing must be such a gift.
Bigottissimo,
GP
Posted by: mezzogregory | April 5, 2005 10:13 PM