I was watching the new “Christmas” movies coming out this season, this one caught my eye because it’s about a Catholic church in the 60’s. It was based on a critcally acclaimed play but they changed the end a bit and they show more things.
I am disapointed that it’s another “did the priest molest the boy” movie, especially this time of year, but I realize that movies aren’t made for us and they have the right to do it. We also have the right not to see it, although the performances are supposed to be great.
I wish the church didn’t give the film/play makers so much material, but that is what brings people in…I will probably not see it, at least at the movies, but I hope for a more heart-warming, loving film to go too.
variety.com/review/VE1117938945.html?categoryid=3266&cs=1
I really liked Doubt. A lot.
Right now, we’re faced with what was a massive sex abuse scandal - a much larger number of cases than many of us would have thought plausible even ten years ago, and what was possibly a majority of US bishops involved in some form of cover-up, plus countless more Catholic priests, nuns, and laity. The question I’ve had, and what I think a lot of other people have had is, “how did this happen? Why, if there were credible accusations of abuse, would a religious person put the offender in a position with
children?”
I liked this movie because it dealt with that issue head-on. It didn’t just make some snarky “priests are molesters” joke like a lot of the media have done - it actually put you in the shoes of someone who had reason to suspect, but lacked the evidence to prove, sex abuse by a priest.
It was a pretty straightforward case, with all its complexities: a charming, theologically liberal priest; homosexually-inclined minors, of an age to feel sexual attractions, but hardly old enough to know how to respond to those appropriately; and rumors and allegations, with little concrete evidence.
Given those facts, it’s really easy to see why you would have people (like Meryl Streep’s character) reporting abuse, and not having their fears being acted upon. I was shocked when I realized that the movie’s protagonist (if there really was one) was a strict, “pre-Vatican II” nun - and that they showed that even though she was tough, she loved and cared about her students.
The movie wasn’t perfect (they made the priests seem more sexist than I think they are or even were), but it did a good job of showing some of the institutional problems which exist without going overboard. We should be grateful to even getting a fair public hearing like that.
Frankly, if they took a case like Fr. John Geoghan or Fr. Paul Shanley, they could have made the Church look *much *worse without even making anything up (there, they
knew of the abuse, and not only did nothing, but facilitated more abuses by moving the offending priests around and lying about it).
So I know the film isn’t perfect, and that it covers an area we’re sensitive about, and that the actors involved are likely not huge fans of the Catholic Church, but it’s still a great movie, which fairly presents the view from the ground during a dramatic period in our Church in America’s history. I think it’s in the interest of the Church for us Catholics to address this issue head-on, and not to whitewash it [haven’t we seen how disastrously that’s turned out in places like Boston?], but to show that it was a morally complex issue that was handled poorly under some pretty novel circumstances we should all pray never to find ourselves in, and in spite of the well-intentioned efforts of many good people.
