Thank God and Greyhound, he's gone!

However, don't start singing the Hallelujah chorus just yet. This does not mean that things will change. Any priest who has risen through the ranks is tainted by the "scandal" - if only by sins of omission, if not by sins of commission and by the conspiracy of silence.

I never fully explained the theological problem of "doubt" when I wrote my previous blog on the film, Doubt. Doubt in the authority and teachings of the Mother Church and the Papacy is a sin tantamount to heresy in a nun. One does not question. This is the double meaning of doubt in the film.

I have no love for the man but sitting in my chiropractor's office and hearing the news of his resignation, my first utterance was that he was "heartsick".  My blog, Just what is the colour of the sky in their world, part 4, was probably on my mind when I said this. This is a man that has never had "doubt" as far as I can tell. He is a "true believer". At the same time, I cannot help but wonder whether or not it has finally become too much. As long as there were the odd priests here and there who abused children, it would not necessarily bring the true believer's faith into question. But it has been relentless. It hasn't let up since it began in the 80s - thirty years of relentless disclosures. Furthermore, it is worldwide. Therefore, it was not indigenous to the "degenerate world of North America".

I speculated earlier that the move of Charles Scicluna out of the Vatican was more than it appeared to be. The resignation of Benedict XVI/Ratzinger makes me wonder even further.

I cannot wish him well in his retirement. He has presided over the Inquisition and has hurt many, many good men and women of the church during his years of power. His refusal to deal seriously with the sexually abusing priest is the worst of it. If there is a "God", I can only hope that "he" will make sure that the years of decline will be fraught with questioning. May he actually suffer from "doubt" and begin to understand the full extent of the damage that he has inflicted (with the help of others, of course) on the faithful.

I don't hold out much hope.

And maybe he is showing signs of early Alzheimer's - if so, couldn't happen to a worthier recipient!

Words to Remember: Faith sustains us

Season 4, Episode 22: beginning @ 37:25

Brother Alwyn Macomber (a Ranger): ... That is what faith is for. Faith sustains us in the hour when reason tells us that we cannot continue, that the whole of our lives is without meaning.
Brother Michael (potential Ranger):  Then why were we born able to reason if reason's useless?
Brother Alwyn Macomber (a Ranger): Not useless, but it's also not enough. Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one. If you  must have reason for an answer, then consider this. If today the Rangers came back to earth from their place in the heavens, you would not know about it. They would come in secret and move around us and help us and we wouldn't even know that they were here, because the secret that they bring is feared by people who still blame science for the Great Burn.
Brother Michael (potential Ranger): Then you think the Rangers are here today
Brother Alwyn Macomber (a Ranger): Yes, I believe they could be. That's all that faith requires - that we surrender ourselves to the possibility of hope. With that, I am content.

Random Thoughts on Doubt: The Director/Writer's Commentary

It was fun and informative. However, as I was discussing the commentary with a friend,I wondered just how autobiographical it actually was. Shanley says that it is in large part autobiographical. Shanley himself says that if any one of the boys were him, it would have been a student called Johnny Langdon (I think that was the name) who got into all sorts of trouble. And it was this boy's reaction to Father Flynn touching him on the arm that made Sister Aloysius first wonder about Father Flynn. He tells the story about how he drank the sacristy wine and was kicked out as an altar boy - a story that is brought into the play. Just wondering.

It reminded me of Sylvia Fraser, a Canadian writer, who wrote a book in 1985 called My Father's House. She wrote how, although she had completely repressed her father's sexual abuse of her when she was a child, it seeped out, not only in her life, but in the sexual violence in her novels.

It also reminds me of Dean R. Koontz, the horror writer. Some years ago, a friend asked him why all of his stories contained the same three people: a single man, a young boy in trouble, and a woman who becomes a friend (really obvious to anyone who has read his books). He denied it, then went back and started to reread his books. Lo and behold, it was true. He went into therapy to find out why. [as an aside, you can actually tell when he was having problems - the books (Hideaway, Mr. Murder, for example) during that period just weren't up to his usual compelling style - the solutions felt way too contrived] - he seems to be back on target again (although he has dropped the R. from his name). Then there's James Ellroy whose memoir, My Dark Places, tells his story.

An interesting review of the play when it was on Broadway: Weighing Doubt: One Playwright's Measured Look at the Crisis in the Catholic Church. Now I will have to get the script of the play. Reading (and listening to Shanley talk about the same period and thinking back to my Catholic friends over the years) about how Catholics viewed the 60s and 70s as a time of change, openness and hope always reminds me how different it is for people inside the belief system and people like me, who have had their run-in with the Catholic belief system, but stood outside it. Vatican II seemed to me, when I was studying it at university, to be about changing the trivialities or the externals - it never made any serious change to the core doctrines and dogma of the church - for example, the theology of the sacramental priesthood.

According to the previous review, he (the author, John Patrick Shanley) is not related to Paul Shanley (one of my questions). Well that's not exactly what he says in an interview just before the play opened off Broadway in 2004. What he says is "And the other biggest predator priest is named Paul Shanley, which, frankly, I don’t like. I’d like to take back the family name. I looked us up in a book of heraldry once. Shanley had two lines: “A small group of excessively quarrelsome, excessively religious people.” Whether he is related, even at a distance is not clear.

Just random thoughts.

Doubt

I just finished watching the film, Doubt. What a good film it was. It lays out just how the system worked. The complexities of the boy's relationship at home were well handled and bringing up an issue that is seldom talked about - the fact that young boys who are gay are particularly vulnerable to the abuses of predators simply because they already feel like they don't belong.

The performances were nuanced. The writing was superb.

Now I am wondering how many people think that the nun had doubts about her accusation, when she says that she has doubts at the end. It is clear that the title is meant to have a dual meaning. I know that one of my students told me about the film and how the guilt of the priest wasn't clear at the end and the nun had doubts about his guilt. Guess what I will be discussing in class at some point in the winter term?

I will watch the film again with the commentary by the director. I will also go and look at the reviews of the film and some of what other people have written about it. Maybe everyone got it - that the nun's doubts had to do with her faith, not the priest's guilt.

Stay tuned

Addendum 1 (4:40pm): I have been thinking about the film and thinking that probably the writer does want us to think that the nun has doubts about everything including the priest's guilt. Maybe Philip Seymour Hoffman did such a good job and is so familiar that I can't imagine who would doubt that he was grooming the boy. In fact, his performance was downright creepily accurate. However, if she does have doubts about the priest's guilt - which Meryl Streep's performance at that point doesn't seem to indicate, then does that speak to the power of the belief system - not just the institution but the belief system. I would love to see the next step in the nun's journey through doubt - could be quite interesting.

Addendum 2 (5:31): When I first looked at who the film was written and directed by, John Patrick Shanley, I wondered offhandedly whether or not he could be a relative of Paul Shanley, one of the figures in the Boston "problem" for years. I didn't bother checking it out and still haven't. However, I think that I will. The more I think about the film, the more I see the Paul Shanley excuses, although quite skillfully understated. Paul Shanley always said that he was being persecuted because he was openly gay - notwithstanding his endorsement of, and membership in (I stand to be corrected here because it is a few years since doing research on that area), NAMBLA (John Stewart's favourite target - look it up if you don't know what the acronym stands for, I just can't write it out). He argued that all he was doing was helping the poor underprivileged children, that the church needed to be modernized, etc. No wonder I am reminded of Paul Shanley when thinking about the film. Shanley's case is interesting in that, even David France, author of Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in the Age of Scandal, ends up sitting on the fence about Shanley (this could have been for legal reasons, we will never know). Even if Shanley didn't sexual assault young boys, his life is so unsavoury, that one still has to wonder why he remained a priest and protected for so long. Well, not really - that was a rhetorical point, only. We shall see.