The movie
I mentioned the movie “Doubt,” which came out at the end of 2008. It hit such a nerve in me that I was unable to watch it…then.
It was set in a 1960s parochial school, and centered around the possibility that the parish priest was sexually abusing one of the altar boys there. And the Sister principal of the school, sometimes too rigid but determined to protect the children, was equally determined to stop him.
In 2024, I was finally able to watch it. By then, I had the anxiety and PTSD symptoms well under control, and had a lot more awareness about myself, friendship, how to live a healthy life, and what those years of abuse and trauma had done to me. While it was still a hard movie to watch, I viewed it SEVERAL times, and NEEDED to. It was time, and it was calling to me.
The performances
Now, I want to hug all of the cast, and especially Meryl Streep, Viola Davis, and Philip Seymour Hoffman for their POWERFUL performances. And Amy Adams as the innocent young nun whose uncertainty provided the opportunity for the priest to manipulate her.
Streep WAS every Mother Superior I ever knew. She just CAPTURED that authority and formidable bearing. Her character did not suffer fools kindly and had a seasoned, pragmatic awareness of life’s “dark underbelly.”
But MOST of all, it was that pivotal confrontation where she railed against the priest’s character, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, that riveted me. It was so very human, fierce, emotionally wrought. No meek, holy humility there, but, instead, a bare-knuckled verbal brawl.
When she ripped off the crucifix from around her neck and gripped it tightly in her fist, it was like she was wielding a dagger. When she waved it right in the priest’s face, she was calling him out for the fight and letting him know she would battle him to the death for those kids. No holy pretentiousness. More like a street fight.
I was almost brought to tears. OH, for a Sister Aloysius in my house. NOTHING, NO ONE would stop HER from protecting a child.
And whether you saw Hoffman’s priest as guilty or not, his character was, nevertheless, slimy. He was demeaning, disrespectful, manipulative, and aware of his “priestly privilege.” He wielded that patriarchal “Church-power” with arrogance, dismissing anyone who thought they had the right, or the power, to question him. As long as you deferred, he was delightful. If you challenged him, the gloves of male power came off. He was a man who broke rules as he saw fit and applied them when he needed to protect his control. And numerous times, he crossed boundaries with both the Sisters and the students.
While most were either disarmed by his charm or intimidated to silence, Sister Principal was NOT. As his control of the situation slipped, his desperate flaunting of those “rules of power” in the church grew more frantic. He nailed a character who was either guilty or innocently made stupid choices out of ego.
Viola Davis’ portrayal of the agonized mother caught between her abusive husband, her victimized son, the priest’s attention, and Sister’s fervor to fight the priest, was absolute perfection. You FELT the dilemma of the dozens of shades of gray pressing down on her, giving her NO good choices. All she had was her absolute clarity to do the best she could for her son amidst poor to terrible options.
The moral dilemmas
The moral dilemmas of abuse, doubt, both of guilt and of religion, the trap of unequal power structures, and protecting a child at all costs, just render the movie such a powerful example of the problem when sexual abuse is involved.
Who believes that the charming man is guilty? Is he? Is it all “circumstantial”? You see something – but do you believe what you see? Or is it all just a misinterpretation?
And then there are the ethical questions. Does the benefit of the priest’s attention on the boy outweigh the harm if he is abusing the boy? When is it right to break the rules of the Church to protect a child? Is it better to risk the adult’s reputation to save the child?
I watched that movie so many times for answers and have to admit that John Patrick Shanley did a masterful job in his script of leaving the question unanswered. It ends, open to many interpretations.
Objectively, I searched for any shred of something to prove the priest’s guilt or innocence without a doubt. UNobjectively, I BELIEVED him guilty, and Sister a hero, because in my father I’d seen that very scenario played out — the powerful man manipulating things to make any impropriety seem “easily explained away as innocent.” And of situations where everyone around that man just wants the whole mess to go away and be swept under a rug because it is too hard to confront it.
The dilemma of the abused
This is one movie where there is no certainty of an answer. And like life, I wish that weren’t so.
Abusers are predators. And predators know how to make sexual assault look innocent, and how to make anyone who questions them look insane. And THAT is the dilemma of people who are abused.
It is their word against an often charming abuser that no one would ever believe capable of such a heinous thing. It is having to fight against someone when the power structure and rules are stacked against you. If you do fight back, it’s easy to be written off as a vengeful crusader with a warped agenda out to destroy an innocent man. And the abusive person never stops trying to manipulate your heartstrings into feeling sorry for them.
Just recently, I saw an article where Harvey Weinstein was whining that almost all of his friends have disappeared because to be associated with him would be career suicide. Forgive me for not caring or crying for him.
I am seeking financial support to complete my memoir, work with an editor, and return home for fact-checking. Your help would mean the world to me as I take this step toward healing and giving voice to my journey.
Please like, comment, and share this post to help spread the word. The link for my fundraiser is on GoFundMe. Thank you for your support.
Soul Mosaic 
Leave a comment