You just change the font color (using that underlined “A” thing) to one that is close to the background color of the forum. Any light color would work for most color schemes.
- Status
K
kalt
Guest
I’m trying the light color thing. I’m a newbie, though, so please excuse me if it doesn’t work out. 
BTW, I really like this part of CAF. I"ve previously only posted on the Other Religions board, and it’s pretty contentious there. This is much nicer.
"I think what she did was horrible - she had no proof at all and she didn’t even bother to try to find the truth - she could’ve actually called his previous school and talked to the nuns. "
That was strange. And the fact that she refused to talk to the priest who would supposedly back-up the story about the kid sneaking altar wine was odd, too.
Even if you know that the other person would lie, most people would at least talk to them.
OTOH, she was a very practical person and probably saw no reason to bother with someone who would lie.
I wondered if she had been molested by a priest herself. Also, in the office during the confrontation, she held her shawl as if it were a baby. I wondered if she had had a baby before she was married. Or maybe had an abortion. There was some serious sin that still made her cry, whatever it was.
The person I went with thought the priest had done it, too, but also said that the nun was doubting that she was right about it.
I think I thought that she was doubting something else, because she said “I have such doubts.” or “I have so many doubts.” (can’t remember the exact wording) and because I felt so strongly that she was exactly right.
Now that I think about it, though, I think you’re right. She was doubting her “certainty” among other things.
I would do the same thing if I were on a jury and convicted someone of a serious crime with little hard evidence.
Recently, someone I knew years ago lost his house. He was lazy and never wanted to work. He’s been out of work for 18 months and has been supported by his parents. He left the house for the weekend, and the house went up in flames.
Now I know this person has lied in court before–twice!
The ruled that the fire was accidental, but I stll have my doubts about it. I would definitely look into the cause a lot more carefully,.
But I didn’t make a call or write a note. I’m not that sure that this was arson, though if I were going to bet…
So, I can see how, if someone had made and accusation and caused real harm to another person, you would always doubt yourself.
Great movies like this make you think. I might have to see it in the theater again before it comes out on DVD,.
What do you think of its awards chances?
BTW, I really like this part of CAF. I"ve previously only posted on the Other Religions board, and it’s pretty contentious there. This is much nicer.
"I think what she did was horrible - she had no proof at all and she didn’t even bother to try to find the truth - she could’ve actually called his previous school and talked to the nuns. "
That was strange. And the fact that she refused to talk to the priest who would supposedly back-up the story about the kid sneaking altar wine was odd, too.
Even if you know that the other person would lie, most people would at least talk to them.
OTOH, she was a very practical person and probably saw no reason to bother with someone who would lie.
I wondered if she had been molested by a priest herself. Also, in the office during the confrontation, she held her shawl as if it were a baby. I wondered if she had had a baby before she was married. Or maybe had an abortion. There was some serious sin that still made her cry, whatever it was.
The person I went with thought the priest had done it, too, but also said that the nun was doubting that she was right about it.
I think I thought that she was doubting something else, because she said “I have such doubts.” or “I have so many doubts.” (can’t remember the exact wording) and because I felt so strongly that she was exactly right.
Now that I think about it, though, I think you’re right. She was doubting her “certainty” among other things.
I would do the same thing if I were on a jury and convicted someone of a serious crime with little hard evidence.
Recently, someone I knew years ago lost his house. He was lazy and never wanted to work. He’s been out of work for 18 months and has been supported by his parents. He left the house for the weekend, and the house went up in flames.
Now I know this person has lied in court before–twice!
The ruled that the fire was accidental, but I stll have my doubts about it. I would definitely look into the cause a lot more carefully,.
But I didn’t make a call or write a note. I’m not that sure that this was arson, though if I were going to bet…
So, I can see how, if someone had made and accusation and caused real harm to another person, you would always doubt yourself.
Great movies like this make you think. I might have to see it in the theater again before it comes out on DVD,.
What do you think of its awards chances?
Y
yellowbird
Guest
I think Meryl (is that how she spells it?) might get a nommination… I wonder if it will got a nod at best picture… I’m thinking no. Many of the critics I’ve read thought it was just OK - Although the play won three Tony awards I think?
I wonder if you have to be Catholic to appreicate it? The respect for the Priest - the chain of command - the difference between Nuns & Priests? (My entire theater laughed at the difference between the Priests eathing dinner and the Nuns) And just the innocence & sweetness of the time… I know the Nun was harsh - maybe too much so, but I do think those kids were so much better behaved & disciplined.
I think it is probably one of the best movies I’ve seen in awhile… it definatly made me think…
Y
yellowbird
Guest
Doubt got nominated for several Golden Globe awards
goldenglobes.org/nominations/
Best Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress (2), Screenplay
The only suprise was a nomination for best supporting actress to the mother of the boy… her scene was fairly brief so I’m suprised.
goldenglobes.org/nominations/
Best Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress (2), Screenplay
The only suprise was a nomination for best supporting actress to the mother of the boy… her scene was fairly brief so I’m suprised.
K
kalt
Guest
I laughed at the difference in the dinner tables, too. Did you think it was a basic difference between men and women, like I did? Well, with the added strictness of the “warden” at the head of the table. Even without Streep’s character, I think the women wouldn’t have been talking, smoking, and drinking like the men were.
I bet non-Catholics who saw it were surprised by the priests’ behavior. They probably think they act all pious all the time.
A friend used to go to Catholic school and thinks that behavior like Streep’s character’s was abusive. I disagree. And time and results have proven that Streep’s character was right about how kids need to be handled in school. Sr James had no control of her class.
I liked that Streep’s characted didn’t care that the kids were afraid of her. It seemed that she knew she wasn’t there to be liked or to be a friend to the kids. She was there to make sure they got a good education and knew how to behave.
Though Sr James and the priest appeared to be the “understanding” type, I think it was Streep’s character who truly understood human nature and children.
She was tough, but she was on top of everything and she wasn’t sheepish about taking charge. Sr James, otoh, was so meek that she wasn’t a real friend to any of the kids. The priest, too. Even if he was just trying to befriend the altar boy, he wasn’t doing a very good job. Why wasn’t he making an effort to get the kid to find friends at school. If the boys didn’t like him, then some of the girls would have made good friends.
Maybe I’m nuts, but I really liked Streep’s character. I don’t think that she did anything just to be mean or to just to show that she was in control. Everything she did and everything she stood for, in her mind, was for the kids’ benefit.
FWIW, I agree with her on the penmanship thing. Somehow penmanship has gone the way of the dinosaur. Very few people today have beautiful penmanship. And most of those who do are older and were educated in Catholic school!
My penmanship is awful, and I would love to improve. I’ve even bought the penmanship books for kids! Nothing works. I think I have a defective penmanship gene, or else it stops working after a certain age and I’ve missed my chance,.
Even without Streep’s character, I think the women wouldn’t have been talking, smoking, and drinking like the men were.I bet non-Catholics who saw it were surprised by the priests’ behavior. They probably think they act all pious all the time.
A friend used to go to Catholic school and thinks that behavior like Streep’s character’s was abusive. I disagree. And time and results have proven that Streep’s character was right about how kids need to be handled in school. Sr James had no control of her class.
I liked that Streep’s characted didn’t care that the kids were afraid of her. It seemed that she knew she wasn’t there to be liked or to be a friend to the kids. She was there to make sure they got a good education and knew how to behave.
Though Sr James and the priest appeared to be the “understanding” type, I think it was Streep’s character who truly understood human nature and children.
She was tough, but she was on top of everything and she wasn’t sheepish about taking charge. Sr James, otoh, was so meek that she wasn’t a real friend to any of the kids. The priest, too. Even if he was just trying to befriend the altar boy, he wasn’t doing a very good job. Why wasn’t he making an effort to get the kid to find friends at school. If the boys didn’t like him, then some of the girls would have made good friends.
Maybe I’m nuts, but I really liked Streep’s character. I don’t think that she did anything just to be mean or to just to show that she was in control. Everything she did and everything she stood for, in her mind, was for the kids’ benefit.
FWIW, I agree with her on the penmanship thing. Somehow penmanship has gone the way of the dinosaur. Very few people today have beautiful penmanship. And most of those who do are older and were educated in Catholic school!
My penmanship is awful, and I would love to improve. I’ve even bought the penmanship books for kids! Nothing works. I think I have a defective penmanship gene, or else it stops working after a certain age and I’ve missed my chance,.
K
kalt
Guest
I had to look away from the screen while the mother was on. All that “fluid” running made me sick. lol
She was excellent, though, and I’m glad she was nominated. She’s a great actress. I wonder what else she’s done.
She was excellent, though, and I’m glad she was nominated. She’s a great actress. I wonder what else she’s done.
F
FickleFreckled
Guest
I wish somebody WOULD give it away; I’d like to see it, but don’t care to see another clergy-bashing movie. Is it about an actual abuser-priest or is he innocent? If you’ve seen it and don’t want to ruin it for everyone, please PM and tell me about it.
Y
yellowbird
Guest
I had the exact same reservations you have - I had the opportunity to see the play and I thought - not a chance. I promise you though, the movie does NOT bash our church at all. If anything it was a nostalgic look back… no bashing whatsoever and whether or not he did it sort of depends on how you see it…
it much more about human nature as a previous poster said.
P
pamnbam
Guest
I saw it yesterday and it didn’t bash the Church at all. I don’t have any resolution since you’re kind of left wondering. It was an okay movie, though. It made me think.
I know this wasn’t addressed directly to me but I wanted to comment on your observations.I laughed at the difference in the dinner tables, too. Did you think it was a basic difference between men and women, like I did? Well, with the added strictness of the “warden” at the head of the table.
I bet non-Catholics who saw it were surprised by the priests’ behavior. They probably think they act all pious all the time.
The dinner scene WAS amusing. What a lot of people don’t realize is that the priests probably had not taken strict vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience if they were secular/diocesan priests. The sisters would have taken such vows.
I DID go to Catholic school in the 1960s but I would have been in first grade at the time this play was set. As school children we were very much afraid of our principal. But we were even more afraid of the pastor of our Church. We did like the associate (who I am told eventually left the priesthood to marry.)
Most of my friends would probably tell you that the principals were abusive. But I think it’s just human nature to rebel against authority. Actually most of the other teachers were equally strict but they still managed to convey that they cared for the children. I think the prevailing idea at the time was that principals should put on an image in order to take some of the heat off the classroom teachers. I also think the principal needed to project an image of authority over the other sisters. (She was usually also the local superior over the sisters.)
I don’t think I ever had a teacher who was as meek as Sr. James until I was in high school.
I agree that Sr. Aloysius was on top of everything. It’s really hard to judge her behavior in trying to learn the truth about Fr. Flynn because we are looking at 1964 with 2008 eyes and standards. I guess I could say the same about Sr. James.
I once belonged to a parish where a priest was arrested and convicted of molesting boys. Most of us dismissed the first warning cries as nonsense. But those complaints came from parishioners. I have no idea if any sisters or other priests also had suspicions and what, if anything, they did about them. I do know that scandal was considered such a horrid crime that people were reluctant to think about priests and religious brothers and sisters being guilty of sexual sin.
I agree. Her methods may occasionally have been flawed. But again, we are judging when it is common knowledge that some priests have been guilty of sexual abuse and others have been falsely accused. Sr. Aloysius lived at a time where it was probably known within school circles that some priests preyed on children but it would have been considered scandalous and sinful to make the knowledge known to the general public.
K
kalt
Guest
Even the boy’s mother didn’t want anything said. She just wanted them to get her kid into a good high school. Times were very different then.
It seems that Sr A was surrounded by people who just wanted to keep everything peaceful, no matter what was going on.
That’s the problem I have with “liberals” today. They seem to stand for nothing, and everything is OK, so long as no one rocks the boat with little things like the truth about immoral behavior and sin.
I feel like I’m becomming a cheerleader for Sr A, and there’s no agreement about whether she was even right! lol
Y
yellowbird
Guest
I liked her … I thought she was a good person and kind underneath all that harshness. I saw that in the way she was helping the blind Nun. I think she did have the children’s best interests at heart, but I think she also had Priest issues for sure.
I think she was looking for something wrong with the Priest - didn’t she seem almost PLEASED when Sr. James suggested something may have happened? That was a very strange response. It wasn’t like OMGosh… how could he… it was so much more like A-HA! Caught him!
I am still on the side of he didn’t do it … well - probably didn’t - but my son & I were talking about the blonde boy who had the bloodied nose. The one who apparently got in trouble all the time… now I’m wondering if something was up with him? When he left school he smoked a ciggerette… now I’m like… hmmmm… interesting… Father also smoked - wonder if he gave him that? Also that boy literally scowled whenever the Priest was around - but then again, a bad boy might just be that way?
Nah, I’m still going with he was innocent. It was that whole conversation in her office… he totally seemed blindsided… like what the HECK are you even suggesting? But I can’t help but wonder why he left? Why not stay and fight?
Do you think he left her his Bible with the flowers?
I figured the blond boy was in the movie just to make people wonder about the things you are wondering about.
I’m pretty impressed by the playwright/screenplay writer John Patrick Shanley . He did a good job of putting in lots of clues… but not enough clues. I wonder if he wrote the play with an opinion of whether or not the priest was guilty?
I
IrishAm
Guest
Friends who are Jewish saw it last weekend and loved it – but can’t wait until the Catholics in the group see it, too, and weigh in on the movie. They both believe he didn’t do it . . . probably.
Y
yellowbird
Guest
haha! isn’t that the way it goes…
K
kalt
Guest
I wonder the same thing.
I think I need to see the movie again.
The tough kid–I think he was there to show a kid who would stand up to the priest (and all authority). Some kids are tough. Some are meek.
Does anyone know if you can actually cause your own bloody nose?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
So this movie is sounding like it’s worth seeing.
How does it “get you thinking” as some people have been saying?
How does it “get you thinking” as some people have been saying?
Y
yellowbird
Guest
I don’t want to spoil it for you so I’m going to speak in very general terms. I think it “gets you thinking” in the sense that you watch this situation unfold but it not obvious as to who is right and who is wrong? It depends on which character you believe… for me it was almost a case of do I look for the best in people, or the worst? And how easy it to ruin someone’s reputation based on what we imagine to be true… or is it true and not just our imagination… so we have to speak up to protect the innocent? Do we go with our gut feeling? But then again, isn’t it so much easeir to believe the worst in someone we already don’t like? I’ve put myself in the position of the main characters and I’ve tried to imagine how I would’ve handled it.
Go see it - I think you’ll like it.
It was just really good - you’d like it I think.
T
thomasf
Guest
First off, I want to say that I’m torn about this movie. It was a good plot, and it is very layered and makes you think. And in principle what it is about is doubt, not about catholic priests abusing children. But I am saddened that this can even be used as part of a story and that the movie calls such light to the priest abuse scandal. No it shouldn’t be forgotten. But hollywood and society in general seem to want to make priests all a bunch of child molestors. I do not like that.
Now for the spoilers:
I did not like Sr A, at all, one bit. I think she went after the priest as a personal attack, and did not give the priest the benefit of the doubt.
What I really liked about the plot was that, at least from my perspective, you got to see the priest’s side of being accused. Accusing the priest put him in a bad place, to the point where he couldn’t effectively care for his parishoners or the boys in the school because he didn’t want to incriminate himself. And the movie gave you insight into what it is like to be a priest and be charged with caring for young boys, but having to watch yourself at the same time. I really liked that side of things.
The movie definitely left you guessing. And it seems from the variety of reviews different people saw it differently. I liked the imagery and how layered the plot was. That’s the way life is, you can’t ever really be sure of anything without proof. And isn’t that what faith is, belief without proof? And in that case doubt goes hand in hand with faith.
This is how I saw things. Maybe Fr Flynn had things in his past that were bad, maybe to do with boys maybe not. Whatever it was, he didn’t want it being brought up and what sealed his fate was Sr A’s lie that she called the nun from his last parish. Until then he was very convincing. IMO he didn’t want that dragged up, and didn’t want to drag the boy through public accusations, and that’s why he stood down. Not because he did anything improper. Think about it, if he was abusing the child, why would he call him out of class to do it, and risk being seen going into the child’s locker by Sr James? He had plenty of opportunity to do it without arousing suspicion.
The whole problem between Sr A and Fr Flynn started with his homily (not surmon like they kept saying) about doubt. That triggered something with Sr A. And when she said in the end that she had so much doubt it struck me. She went after Fr Flynn because he embodied and called to light her own doubt and struggles. And she didn’t like that he could speak about it, and be happy, and be a man of faith, while she had to conceal it and not be happy and have her doubts. SO she went after him to attack herself and her own doubts. In the end she got him out of there, but she also wasn’t as sure as she thought and she wasn’t convinced of anything.
It was a good movie. I just wish it could have been done without the catholic church and her priests involved.
Now for the spoilers:
I did not like Sr A, at all, one bit. I think she went after the priest as a personal attack, and did not give the priest the benefit of the doubt.
What I really liked about the plot was that, at least from my perspective, you got to see the priest’s side of being accused. Accusing the priest put him in a bad place, to the point where he couldn’t effectively care for his parishoners or the boys in the school because he didn’t want to incriminate himself. And the movie gave you insight into what it is like to be a priest and be charged with caring for young boys, but having to watch yourself at the same time. I really liked that side of things.
The movie definitely left you guessing. And it seems from the variety of reviews different people saw it differently. I liked the imagery and how layered the plot was. That’s the way life is, you can’t ever really be sure of anything without proof. And isn’t that what faith is, belief without proof? And in that case doubt goes hand in hand with faith.
This is how I saw things. Maybe Fr Flynn had things in his past that were bad, maybe to do with boys maybe not. Whatever it was, he didn’t want it being brought up and what sealed his fate was Sr A’s lie that she called the nun from his last parish. Until then he was very convincing. IMO he didn’t want that dragged up, and didn’t want to drag the boy through public accusations, and that’s why he stood down. Not because he did anything improper. Think about it, if he was abusing the child, why would he call him out of class to do it, and risk being seen going into the child’s locker by Sr James? He had plenty of opportunity to do it without arousing suspicion.
The whole problem between Sr A and Fr Flynn started with his homily (not surmon like they kept saying) about doubt. That triggered something with Sr A. And when she said in the end that she had so much doubt it struck me. She went after Fr Flynn because he embodied and called to light her own doubt and struggles. And she didn’t like that he could speak about it, and be happy, and be a man of faith, while she had to conceal it and not be happy and have her doubts. SO she went after him to attack herself and her own doubts. In the end she got him out of there, but she also wasn’t as sure as she thought and she wasn’t convinced of anything.
It was a good movie. I just wish it could have been done without the catholic church and her priests involved.
T
turtleoompa
Guest
Have you noticed HOLLYWOOD has started to do movies knocking the the Catholic Church(of which THEY truely don’t have any clue about) around Christmas/Easter time. Like The Da Vinci Code. I saw the actor who plays the priest in this Doubt movie on one of the morning shows and he went on about how the “OLD” Masses were done and how the congregation had to pray to God “thru” the priest who had his “back” turn to the people. Just nonsence from one who does not know our religion. Everything is taken out of context. The Catholic religion is a truely beautiful faith of which HOLLYWOOD of now days has no clue about.
- Status