Blogs and Stories
We Miserable Catholics
)
Andrew Schwartz/Miramax Film Corp
For all the problems that pop up in Doubt you can blame the Pope, John the Twenty-Third, himself. If he had not convened the Second Vatican Council in 1963 the Catholic Church would have lumbered along for another century, mired in its ancient traditions, mumbling Latin to keep the faithful mystified. John pressed a button that stirred the winds of change in the Catholic Church. How was he to know that those winds would howl across the Atlantic, to whoosh through the hallways of a certain Catholic elementary school in the Bronx, to shake the very window shades in the office of the principal, Sister Aloysius, leading her to remark, “The wind is so peripatetic this year”?
Sister wouldn't have given a second thought to the Second Vatican Council, especially if she suspected what was being discussed by the assembled cardinals, archbishops, bishops and every spiritual and theological camp follower in the church. ('Men run everything,' she says.) Sister would have been appalled at the very idea that these holy men might have been uttering the word 'contraception,' that, under the benign influence of John Twenty-Three and his successor, Paul VI, they were reaching out to other religions, that they were considering changes in the liturgy that would require the priest saying Mass to face the congregation and, God between us and all harm, that that priest might be speaking in English rather than Latin and, even worse, that the congregation might be invited to participate. There were rumors, too, that nuns might be permitted to doff their habits and move through the world like 'normal' people.
'The wind has changed,' says Sister Aloysius.
Is she on to something? Does this priest, Father Flynn, embody the future, the change, the upsetting of her little fiefdom? (Oh, John Patrick Shanley, you've crafted what seems like a nice simple little story here but if we yank at one of the strings of your narrative it's going to unravel all the way to the Throne of St. Peter.)
In Doubt there isn't a single mention of the Second Vatican Council - but it's there. (An American anthropologist asked an old Irishwoman if she believed in fairies. 'I do not,' she said, 'but they're there.') There were traditionalists at the Council who resisted change. (Sister Aloysius would have washed their feet.) The progressives, inspired by Pope John XXIII, wanted to let in some fresh air. (Father Flynn would have gladly opened the windows.)
In Doubt the Catholic Church is at the crossroads.
So, what's new? The Catholic Church is always at the crossroads and, if you're on to images, the cross will do nicely. Father Flynn has his own crossroads: he may or may not be gay. In 1965 it was a topic for cries and whispers. 'Ah, well, he's a little soft in his ways, God help us, but wasn't he good to his mother.' Sister Aloysius accuses him of seducing Donald but does she even know what seduction means? Standing at her own crossroads, consumed by doubt, which is an aspect of fear, does she know anything about anything? In 1965 she can take refuge in habit, cross and dogma but that is soon to change.
Atheism is not enough and dogma is too much.
Is Father Flynn really gay? Will Donald Miller, the black kid, survive and go on to college? Will Sister Aloysius ever allow herself to be caught up in the winds of change? Will she ever know a moment of peace - never mind joy? (Take a moment here to refer to the performance of Viola Davis in the role of Donald's mother: If she doesn't get an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress I'll throw shoes.)
And you, Mother Church. You've come a long way. Your priests face their people. Women are allowed to enter churches bareheaded. There is talk that women might someday become priests.
Mother o' God, Sister Aloysius, what do you think of that?
Frank McCourt is the authentic heir to the British throne. He was abducted from Buckingham Palace when King and Queen were having an orgy and neglecting little Prince Frank. He was taken to a place in Ireland called Limerick where he suffered undue hardships as opposed to due hardships. However, he's over all that now and here comes his real biography:
After thirty years as teacher of high school English in New York City, Frank McCourt retired and wrote a memoir, Angela's Ashes. The book was a best-seller and won the Pulitzer among other prizes. McCourt published two more memoirs, 'Tis and Teacher Man along with a children's book, Angela and the Baby Jesus.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Isn't the point in Doubt that Father Flynn may be a paedophile, rather than gay? There is a difference, Mr McCourt, and not acknowledging it makes you as culpable as the Church, which has often characterised all sexuality as repellent, unless it is enacted to make souls for the Pope. The Church has scorned sexuality to the extent that it can perceive no difference between joyous sensuality and the obscene and criminal.
The film The Magdalene Sisters shows how the Catholic Church ran Ireland much like the Taliban did Afghanistan.
This to me is why the Catholic Church is full of hypocrisy....how many times have we heard about these priests having sexual relations with young boys and it's generally covered up......WHY!!!!
Religious faith's of all kind I find can be very hypocritical....they preach one thing and do another, I don't feel the need to go to any church and have someone preach to me about right and wrong, when the chances are they are out there committing sins all over the place.
The movie is a parable about faith and the ramifications of certainty of one's ideas without the possibility of doubt. Vatican II stretched the certainty of a way of life for all Catholics, but especially clergy and religious (that's nuns for you non Catholics). One priest told me he was ordained on the eve of Vatican II and felt like he was trained to be a plumber and had to go out and work as an electrician. True discipleship requires us to move beyond our comfort zone, whether in clothing, liturgical language and music or helping the less fortunate among us. As for us miserable Irish it has been said "he had a strong sense of melancholy that sustained him through periodic moments of joy"
Pssst. It's a story. It's 'make pretend'. It is also a stunning example of Anti-Catholic bigotry and prejudice, rooted once again in Ignorance. A case of 'Rosieitis', wherein you embrace the very ideas designed to propser and protect and inflict them upon self. It is the rooted state of mind known as Self Loathing. "Pretty".
Not to be too terribly obvious, but yes a Nun would know all about seduction, just as every woman alive has always known about it. It is the 'enmity' between the 'woman' and the 'snake'.
What? No Devil Worshipping in this piece? You missed one.
"a power struggle over the first black student in a strict school "
What a strange way to describe the plot. I realize Mr. McCourt didn't write this intro.
But Mr. McCourt did describe a priest who may have preyed on an underage boy as "gay".No qualification there, McCourt seems to see the priest's hideous abuse of authority (implied in the text) as a "gay" thing. He makes no effort to distinguish between the terrible and immoral actions implied to the priest, and actual gay people- it all seems the same to him.
I used to admire Mr. McCourt, but my Irish family has been proved correct in their suspicions of him. He's a reliable merchant of Irish Catholic gothic misery, projecting his own sad life onto others, a certified expert in Gaelic religio-perversion.
As a gay Irish Catholic in the 21st century, with a loving and supportive family, I find Mr. McCourt's trafficking in maudlin, antiquated bathos and self-pity tiresome. And ascribing the priest in "Doubt"'s crimes to being "gay" is an insult to gay people everywhere who recoil in horror at the violation implied.
A rotten priest who molests a student is not "gay" Mr. McCourt. He's a criminal, and I'm very sad that your stage-Irish song-and-dance routine has brought you to tarring gay people this way. I'm sure you've got a good essay in you about actual gay priests in Ireland, but your insensitive tarring of gay people makes me wonder if you've ever lifted a finger to understand others' struggles instead of profitably wallowing in your own.
Yes, Irish American Catholics--great review, commentary, too.
I saw the show but have not yet seen the movie.
Wouldn't any decent person struggle, as Sister Aloysius did, with a suspicion that a priest might have violated a boy?
I saw her more as an advocate for him, one heavily burdened since all the responsibility for his safety fell to her. For that, I found her brave and strong.
You've nailed it. And for those who find your & Shanley's writings blasphemous & offensive,it's what we do in the free world-question & analyze with vigilance institutions like the church. Blind obedience is the lazy mans religion. Using our minds is what Jesus called on us to do. To free us from mental slavery. That is what the church calls us to do. That is what Shanley's play is about. Doubt.
NO RELIGION IS EVER 'ALL' RIGHT ' NOR 'ALL WRONG'
AND IF 'PERFECTION ' IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR , WELL, YOU AREN'T LOOKING VERY ......!!!
FAITH IN GOD IS A GOOD THING ALONG THE ROAD OF LIFE......!
SOUNDS LIKE MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THESE COMMENTS ARE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES NOT TO LOOK...........!
NO, I'M NOT CATHOLIC --
I was a little girl in Catholic school at the time of the Vatican II changes. During my first two years in school there was Latin Mass, chapel caps for girls, and Benedictine nuns in their vast sweeping regalia. By the time third grade had rolled around there was a Folk Mass (complete with guitars), along with nuns in knee-length black skirts (which led to the rather jarring realization that the nuns actually had knees, shins and feet--they didn't really levitate after all). I have to say that I'm glad I experienced both incarnations. Because I was so young, I was most tuned in to the obvious cosmetic changes which came out of Vatican II. But I have often since wondered what it must've been like for the clergy at that time of great change. The pre-Vatican II church seemed more conducive to repression, to the keeping of secrets, to denial, to hushed protection. Did those with something to hide swallow hard when the "peripatetic" wind around their parish achieved gale force?
I have since stepped away from the church, but I look upon it with an ambivalent and bittersweet fondness--much as one might have for a brilliant, but difficult and complex, lover. And I will always owe a debt to the fierce intellectual example set by those priests and nuns who taught me.
At times when I'm tempted to go back to church, all I need do is to turn on the television to ETWN (Eternal Word Television Network) to get a flavor of what the more repressive and strictly orthodox elements of the church require. Sadly, these seem to be the folks with whom our current pope is more aligned. I appears I'll have to be content with my recollections of a more Golden Age in the church--which was in my distant past.
I'm looking. Check this out:
"a nun talking back to a priest! Is she out of her mind? Doesn't she know the priest is God's direct representative on earth, that he holds authority she'll never experience? Her proper function, like Mary Magdalene's sister, Martha, is to wash feet."
Did Frank McCourt not get his copy of the Bible in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL?
Fast Forward, The Last Supper. Jesus is washing the feet of his Disciples. His Disciples rebell saying, "master, it should be us who are washing your feet". And what did Jesus say? Huh? Well? Did no one notice?
And Jesus said, "He who is greatest amongst you is the one who renders the most service."
This apparently includes menial tasks, like the washing of feet. And, to instill the exactitude of his claim, Jesus dried his Apostle's feet WITH HIS HAIR, apparently not sporting a buzz cut at the time.
OH for goodness sake, ......the use of Mary Magdalene and Martha and the 'washing of feet" is to convey a sense that the sisters were expected to humble themselves in the presence of the priest (Jesus), just as Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha did.....and he is right. It was not their place to question, either the priest, God and his church. Just wasn't done back then and quite frankly, the average Catholic did not question either..
Vatican II changed everything.
Just to get the facts straight: Yes, Jesus did wash the apostle's feet but did not dry them with his hair, he used a towel. (John 13:5). You are confusing him with Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, who greased Jesus feet and dried them with her hair. (John 12:3)
Hi Spinozareader:
Luckily for us, John Belluschi got rid of the guitars once and for all in 'Animal House'. LOL.
I was a little girl in Catholic school at the time of the Vatican II changes. During my first two years in school there was Latin Mass, chapel caps for females, and Benedictine nuns in their vast sweeping regalia. By the time that third grade rolled around there was Folk Mass (complete with guitars), along with nuns in knee-length black skirts (which led to the jarring realization that nuns actually had knees, shins and feet--they didn't really levitate after all!). I'm glad I experienced both incarnations of the Church. Because I was so very young, I was most attuned to the obvious cosmetic changes that came out of Vatican II. But I have since wondered what it must have been like for the interior world of the clergy at that time of great change. The pre-Vatican II church seemed more conducive to repression, to the keeping of secrets, to denial, to hushed protection. Did those clergy with something to hide swallow hard when the "peripatetic" wind around their parishes achieved gale force? Or, more fundamentally, did some of them not even realize that they had something to hide? In other words, was their degree of denial strong enough to shield them from realization of their guilt if they'd abused those in there care?
At those times that I'm tempted to return to the church, all I need do is tune in to ETWN (Eternal Word Television Network) to get a flavor of what the more dogmatic and orthodox elements of the church require of the true believer.
I'll just have to be content with my recollections of a more Golden Age in church history--which resides in my distant past.
I'm one of those ethnic Catholic Irish-Americans.
I'm a non-practicising Catholic today. I miss many things about the Church and the laity.
I was also on the board of a Unitarian church and discovered even this proudly intellectual, non-religious religion suffered from the same worship of image and authority figures. There was a disturbed minister whom one of the members of the congregation, a psychologist, believed had a borderline personality disorder. As this minister wrecked havoc, the consensus of those in authority locally and nationally was to hide the damage best as possible, not remove the minister from their position, and allow this person to move to another congregation.
Sound familiar?
I also heard anti-Catholicism superiority from some of these same individuals.
I learned it wasn't the so much the Catholic Church as it is human nature to want to belong to a group that is 'better than the others' with a willingness to allow damage to innocents in the name of protecting that image.
@ Veronicaxy
That's a terrible thing to learn. I hope you'll reconsider. Life's better than that, hopefully for you too.
What 'innocents' are you referring to? Exactly ...
I'd just like to point out what a delicious writer McCourt is. Regardless on your take of his views, or this subject matter, this article sings along beautifully.
I think some are missing the point on the gay/paedophile debate. In 1965--especially in the world depicted in Doubt--there was not much of a difference in one being gay and one being a child molester. These two things were (and in the more ignorant minds still are) one and the same. So for the character to be understood as maybe or maybe not being gay would in fact be just as much a problem for the Sister as if he were perhaps a paedophile. Ignorance is a dangerous state of mind and it's one that many continue to live in. I have not seen the movie but I think Mr. McCourt is not confusing gay and paedophile as much as he is just stating that in the movie if the Priest were to be found out as gay, it would be sure fire proof that he did the crime.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I'm an Irish-Catholic, raised just at the beginning of Vatican II. I'm also from Philadelphia, which was a Catholic Jurassic Park (while every other diocese implemented changes, we were years behind).
My experience of the church was never joyless. But then again, joy is only one of a number of emotions that the church intends to provoke. Part of its responsibility is to find God alongside all emotions - joy and sorrow, pride and shame, etc., the whole spectrum of human experience. What makes the church different from every other institution is that the church is willing to experience shame, and humiliation, and even fear - trusting in the God who leads us through them.
Of course, the Irish specialize in the shame. Somebody's got to take the lead.
To correct a common misconception: Mary of Magdala was a different Mary than Martha's sister. Sadly, even these women who are actually named in Scripture, end up rolled into one Mary. Biblical scholars have made this clear to each other, but not to the rest of the faithful. And, by the way, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute either!
Dear Mr. McCourt, I grew up surrounded by strict French nuns i full habit all my life. So no, you don't have to be Irish to understand the "unique joylessness" of Catholicism.
As a catholic I am totally upset the way the church is going. Not all priests are gay. Say that I wish they would stick to the things they used to do like help the working poor, fighting or justice for the poor. Now they have become more like the evangelica churchs. This isn't the church I grew up in. This new Pope is terrible. He wants to set the church back instead move it forward. The church won't allow priests to marry because they don't want to lose their wealth.
I love Frank McCourt..not a very intelligent comment but I do! And I really enjoyed this piece. Alot of people here take this a little to seriously. CALM DOWN people. This is about a make believe movie..I think America needs to puff puff pass as ONE people and enjoy the Holidays.
Merry Christams everyone
I had twelve years of Catholic Education. All with Nuns the School Sisters of Notre Dame and the Daughters of Charity. Some of them were tough all of them devoted to the children they taught.
Vatican II brought many changes. Many of them I regret. As many my age I miss the Tridenten Mass. There was a reverence when in Church that is sorely missing today.
As for celibacy, no Priest or Religeous enters service to God and the Church blindly. It is a promise to put self last and God and the People of God first. In todays world this is frowned upon and thought to be foolish. There are some Catholics and non-Catholics today who live selfless lives but not so publicaly as to set such an example as our good Sisters and Priests of the past.
frank, your comments are much appreciated !!!!!!!!! i read the irish countrymen in an anthropology class when i was in college so i understand your people's thinking ,somewhat !!!!!!!! it is a shame myth and ritual for irish catholics will never be the same !!!!!!!!!! it made others curious to learn about the irish's unwavering belief system !!!!!!!!! it was amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.