Over the weekend, my family and I watched the movie Doubt starring Meryl Streep as Sister Aloysius Beauvier. Sister Aloysius is a strict nun, adhering to all principles related to the Church. She strongly disapproves of hair barettes, flirty girls, troubled boys, and the naivety and innocence of Sister James. She cares greatly for the reputation of her parish and school and insists that they remain in static condition by following customs that they have acknowledged for years. A new priest, Father Brendan Flynn is welcomed to the congregation and becomes Sister Aloysius' superior. His sermons contain strikingly secular material. He speaks of doubting faith in times of trouble, of gossip, and of intoleration of others. This irks Sister Aloysius, and she decides to keep an eye out for the new priest and his "strange" methods.
One day, Sister James notices that Donald Miller, the only African American student at the school, is acting peculiarly after a one-on-one meeting with Father Flynn. She smells alcohol on his breath and immediately recounts her findings to Sister Aloysius. The rigid nun becomes convinced that the priest has made sexual advances on the helpless child and sets out to make it known. She has no evidence, and at one point even lies to draw information from the stubborn Father Flynn. Sister James, kind-hearted as she is, is appalled that Aloysius would do such a thing! Sister Aloysius justifies her wrongdoing by saying that one must take one step away from God in order to quell evils.
Weren't the Puritans, in a way, doing this same exact thing? They were distancing themselves from God by hanging their friends and family in the name of God. Is this not a contradiction? I find it to be one, especially for the Boston, Massachusetts community of John Winthrop which idolized the New Testament merciful God. Murder is a sin against the The Commandments, found in the Old Testament. Why, then, other than "purification", did the Puritans allow there to be blood on their hands?
Sister Aloysius also felt herself to be infallible. When questioned by Father Flynn about her evidence against him, she claimed to have just that: her certainty. But is there such a thing as certainty? Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action does not relay this. The irony, however, is that Aloysius succeeds in relocating the priest..yet she has a sudden epiphany at the end of the movie when she realizes that she, too, might finally be experiencing doubt. She was able to recognize herself as a human being, equal to all.
(Sam Maliha)
3 comments:
I agree that there is a contradiction there, but I guess the contradictions of the Puritans just seem more intense. I think it's because Sister Aloysius's actions seem to be only temporary. She only lied in order to get information to get rid of the priest. It seems that she was willing to commit a sin in order to complete a greater deed. On the other hand, the Puritans seemed to contradict themselves chronically. Ever action seemed to contradict some aspect of their belief.
In regard's to her certainty, wasn't it a bluff to begin with? She had no evidence to use to back such certainty. Even if she did have such evidence, though, I think that there has to be at least one detail that she would not know of.
I see no inherent contradiction here, aside from the obvious contradictions one must accept if he/she wants to be religious. Both the New Testament and Old Testament include a good number of what many would consider "steps away from God in order to quell evils." Just observe the passages on punishment (killing adulterers, homosexuals, etc.).
Because religion is naturally exclusionary, what the Puritans did is perfectly rational. According to most doctrine, murder and other punishment is justifiable if done to those who have sinned against God or against God's chosen people. If I consider myself one of the unstained, I have every right to persecute those who I label as impure. And because everyone's standards of impiety are different, the circles continue to contract.
Besides, because religion is a mind game, all actions are justifiable. If one knows, absolutely KNOWS they are correct, than they must be. Because there is no ultimate moral standard, no rigid code of right and wrong, relativity reigns supreme. Therefore, the Puritan condition may seem skewed from a modern perspective, but I can't see it as contradictory.
(Taylor)
Well, during incidents like the Salem witch hunt, the Puritans assumed that they were killing witches (allies of Satan), which justified murder. As Taylor said, if you are not one of God's chosen people, well, you face the consequences. Within religions, almost always there are rationalizations for "stepping away from God."
Certainty is a fundamental part of religion, as certainty (especially without any proof) is much like faith. Sister Aloysius' suspicions were aroused in the first place when the priest gave a sermon on doubt without condemning it. After all, doubt is what eventually killed the Puritan religion.
Post a Comment