Here’s a paper I wrote for my Systematic theology class about the movie Doubt. There are certainly some spoilers (If that movie could have spoilers), but I specifically don’t take sides in the question of “did he do it?”. Enjoy.
Theological Anthropologies and View of Human Nature
There are really four different theological anthropologies represented in the film’s four major characters. Although the students are important to the plot of the film, their theology isn’t really revealed, instead the views of Sister Aloysius, Father Flynn, Sister James, and Mrs. Miller are where the plot hinges.
Sister Aloysius’ view of human nature is extremely pessimistic. Her interactions with the students reveal a constant sense of distrust and suspicion. She does seem to hold male characters to a different standard than women. For example, when she is talking with Sister James about the students in her class she seems concerned for Noreen Horan. Whereas her attitude toward the male students is usually one of animosity, she wishes to protect Noreen. She says to Sister James “just get her through…intact.” Sister Aloysius is primarily concerned about Noreen’s interactions with the boys so I interpret this as a reference to her virginity. Noreen’s own agency seems to play no part in Sister Aloysius’ concern about her. I think this demonstrates her assumption that Noreen is good by nature. Her attitude toward the boys, on the other hand, is one of distrust. For her, the male characters are a corrupting influence, with Father Flynn being the most corrupting of all. So her view of human nature is that at some level people, or at least women, are good, but that they can be corrupted. The place she seems to see this corruption most strongly is through sexuality. Interestingly, Sister Aloysius treats Donald the same way as the girls. This comes up when Mrs. Miller is talking with Sister Aloysius as she walks to work. Mrs. Miller is trying to explain that her son is different, I assume that she’s suggesting that he’s homosexual. She says, “I’m talking about the boy’s nature, not about any action.” To which Sister Aloysius replies, “I only care about actions.” Sister Aloysius’ view of human nature is strongly connected with actions, I think because she believes that a person’s nature is pure but can become corrupted.
Father Flynn also believes that people are inherently good, and seems to share some of Sister Aloysius view that their nature can be corrupted. I think the important difference is that Father Flynn believes in redemption and forgiveness. When he is speaking with Sister James in the garden he tells her, “There are people who go after your humanity Sister, who tell you that the light in your heart is a weakness, don’t believe it! It’s an old tactic of cruel people to kill kindness in the name of virtue.” He equates humanity with that light, a point echoed in Sister Aloysius’ office each time her light bulb burns out. Although he sees Sister Aloysius as one of those cruel people that he warns Sister James about, he also reveals that he thinks even she can be redeemed. When he asks her if she has ever committed a mortal sin, Sister Aloysius shows a rare moment of weakness. She stutters, “I confessed it Father.” and he replies, “and whatever I have done, I have left it in the healing hands of my confessor, as have you. We are the same.” Clearly, he believes that she has been forgiven of her mortal sin, and that he has also been forgiven of his. But Sister Aloysius reveals her doubt of both her own forgiveness and his with her reply; “A dog that bites is a dog that bites.”
Sister James’ view of human nature develops through the plot of the movie. At the beginning, she is innocent and optimistic. She seems to always assume good intentions and look for the good in people. Her interpretation of Roosevelt’s famous line is a good example of this optimism. “Maybe he was saying that the world is good and we only need to work together to overcome our problems.” Even when she is faced with her own feelings that Father Flynn molested Donald, she is deeply troubled by the idea that he may not be as good as she had thought. After bringing her concern about Father Flynn to Sister Aloysius she says, “It is unsettling to look at people with suspicion, I feel less close to God.” She struggles with this sense while at the same time being confronted with more things that cause her to suspect Father Flynn. But she also takes his advice about light to heart. When her attitude seems to have shifted and she yells at Jimmy Hurley she sees herself becoming one of those “cruel people”. It isn’t until he apologizes that she sees that she has truly hurt him, and immediately apologizes herself. I see this as an echo of the Sacrament of Penance, she sees her own sin against his human nature and is contrite. I think this marks the first introduction of redemption into her sense of human nature. Early in the film she simply rejects the reality of sin, and when she is finally confronted with it in herself she sees the need for forgiveness.
Mrs. Miller’s view of human nature is unusual among the characters in that she holds to a doctrine of original sin. As she says to Sister Aloysius “There’s something wrong with everybody and their soul’s got to be forgiven.” but, she also believes in forgiveness and the inherent goodness of human nature. When talking about her son drinking communion wine, she says “But he’s a good boy, Sister, he fell down there, but he’s pretty much a good boy pretty much down the line.” Her attitude about her son’s suspected homosexuality is also interesting. She doesn’t seem to think that he can change it, it is simply part of “his nature”. She seems to uphold the idea that homosexuality is sinful, but she also recognizes that it is something that “God gave him to be.”
Doctrine of Sin
Connected with her view of human nature, Sister Aloysius seems to view sin as corruption. Because she doesn’t believe in real forgiveness or redemption, every sin becomes a permanent stain, which I think is what leads her ultimately into doubt and despair. In the other nuns and in the girls at the school, she sees untainted innocence, and seems to believe that they can simply avoid sin. But in the boys and in Father Flynn she sees a kind of contagious corruption. Her only “proof” of Father Flynn’s misconduct is that she saw him grab the wrist of William London. In that scene, shortly after Father Flynn touches him, he touches Sister James on the elbow, at which point Sister Aloysius yells at him from her balcony. In some way, William had been corrupted by the touch and when he touched Sister James he might corrupt her. Although her sense of Father Flynn’s corruption found a focus in the accusations of sexual misconduct, it really seems to stem from what he said in his first sermon. Suggesting that doubt might be a valid expression of piety flew in the face of how Sister Aloysius understood sin. To her, doubt was a sin, to have doubts was to be in a state of doubt and therefore corrupt. While they are eating dinner, she says to the other nuns “Is Father Flynn in doubt? Is he concerned that someone else is in doubt?” She assumes that he was revealing his own corrupted state, which leads her to tell the other nuns to watch for suspicious behavior. In the very last scene, when she confesses her doubt to Sister James, I think she is also revealing her own state of doubt throughout the whole film. Her question to the nuns at dinner was pointed both at Father Flynn and herself, but she holds on to her certainty about his guilt to avoid her own sense of doubt about God. Admitting her own corruption, in her view, holds a huge amount of guilt because it meant admitting that she could have corrupted all those in her care.
Father Flynn is not concerned about purity in his doctrine of sin. The montage between the nuns’ dinner and the priests’ offers a good contrast between his doctrine and Sister Aloysius’. The nuns are shown eating silently, drinking milk, and keeping the table tidy. The priests are raucously laughing, drinking alcohol, and smoking around a messy table. His doctrine of sin seems much more focused on the idea of human brokenness, which is deeply tied with his belief in forgiveness and redemption. In his first sermon, he talks about the sense of loss felt by the whole community when Kennedy was assassinated, and reminds them how much it brought people together. He compares this with the alienation felt by those struggling privately with sin and doubt and tells his congregation “when you are lost you are not alone.” He sees both the brokenness of people and their inherent goodness as creatures, sin is much more about relationships than about purity. His emphasis on Penance, which I mentioned earlier, is also important. For Father Flynn, sin can be forgiven, and I think his challenge to Sister Aloysius is that she needs to accept that she has truly been forgiven. In the scene where he confronts her about sin, he never admits exactly what he had done, but he does express his belief that it had been forgiven.
Like her doctrine of human nature, Sister James’ doctrine of sin develops as the plot develops. I think she holds much more and more closely to Father Flynn’s view as the plot develops. Initially, she accepts Sister Aloysius way of viewing the world, for example she became strict with her class in order to avoid the kind of sinful corruption that she was warned about. But she relents when she sees what that view does to her and to her students, and she allows room for grace. Her response to Sister Aloysius in the final scene suggests that by then she has fully rejected the view that sin is a kind of corruption. After Sister Aloysius admits her doubt, which in her view meant she was in a state of sin, Sister James takes her hand. This is a strong contrast with the scene early in the film where Father Flynn touches William London’s hand. Sister James doesn’t deny that Sister Aloysius has fallen and yet she still reaches out to her in the moment.
Again, Mrs. Miller’s doctrine of sin offers an interesting third perspective. She views sin as something intrinsic to people but also as something that can be forgiven. She describes sin in terms of “fall” when she talks about her son drinking, and in the same breath talks about how good he is. Her doctrine of sin is not legalistic in the way that Sister Aloysius’ is. In the scene where they are walking together and Sister Aloysius accuses her of being a bad mother, Mrs. Miller tells her “You don’t know enough about life to say a thing like that, you know the rules maybe but that don’t cover it. You accept what you’ve got to accept and you work with it.” Of all the characters, I think Mrs. Miller reflects the simul justus et peccator doctrine of sin the most. She sees the potential for good even the worst kind of situations. Unfortunately, this attitude allows her to willingly accept some pretty bad situations, such as living with an abusive husband.
Theological Connections
In terms of how the film connects with the reading we’ve done, I think the theological anthropologies and doctrines of sin fall into two categories. Sister Aloysius’ view that sin is corrupting and unforgiveable is one, and the other characters’ view that sin is part of fallen human nature and can be forgiven is the other. These reflect two fundamentally different views of how God works in the world.
The two views line up well with Peters’ dichotomy of God pushing from the past vs. pulling toward the future. “I suggest we think of God’s creative activity as a pull from the future rather than a push from the past.” Sister Aloysius’ theology is deeply legalistic and tied up with God’s push from the past, the result is that human sin can and will corrupt individuals. Because there is no room for God’s vision of the future in her theology, it only leads to despair. When she confesses her doubt at the end of the film, I think she is really confessing that she can’t see God at work in the world in the present or future. On the other hand, the other characters have a more proleptic view of God. They don’t deny the reality of sin, but they see God’s redeeming presence in the world. Their views of human nature and sin are deeply connected with this faith in God’s redemptive work. The larger plot arc also connects with this theme. Sister Aloysius’ faith is based in the certainty of God in the past, the other characters’ in hope for the future. I think her doubt marks her turn from false certainty toward hope.
Sister James’ development throughout the film connects well with Peters’ discussion of world construction. She begins the film in a state of first naivete, Sister Aloysius even describes her as “innocent”. Her simple optimistic faith seems to have never been really challenges. As the plot progresses, she moves into critical consciousness, which is where Sister Aloysius seems to be stuck. I think the reason that Father Flynn’s sermon on doubt had such an impact on her is that her view of doubt as sin was the only thing keeping her from completely losing her faith. She was clinging to one last shred of her own first naivete and when that was threatened she decided that something must be wrong with Father Flynn. This is similar to Peters’ discussion of anti-modern fundamentalist literalism. “Fundamentalists are literalist who have been confronted with critical consciousness and do not want their world of meaning torn away from them…it risks putting faith in the world of biblical meaning rather than in the transcendent God who shatters our meaning and calls us to radical obedience.” Sister James moves into second naivete by the end of the film, and in that final scene, I think Sister Aloysius moves there as well. Her doubt was present from the beginning but until she confessed it, she would never be able to move past it.
As I said earlier, I think Mrs. Miller holds a simul justus et peccator view. Unlike Sister Aloysius, she doesn’t draw hard lines between good and bad people. Father Flynn also holds some of this, at least for himself, but I think that his remark that Sister Aloysius is “cruel” reveals that he doesn’t hold it universally. At that point in the film, he seems to think that she is only sinful and doesn’t speak to her being justified. On the other hand, in his discussion about her sin and confession his view seems to change. He tells her, “we are the same.” In that moment he is able to see her as justified and forgiven of her sin, just as he sees himself to be. But he also recognizes that she is still “cruel” just as he is still in bondage to sin.
Doubt really is the central theme of this film, but not in the way it seems to be. The doubt surrounding Father Flynn’s guilt or innocence is secondary to the crisis of faith for Sister Aloysius and the development of Sister James’ faith. Even broader than that, it is ultimately about the struggle for religious faith through post-modernism. I think the message of the film is optimistic about religion in the end. Even within deep doubt and crisis, the characters are able to find meaning
