Lessons in Doubt

In the play, Doubt: a Parable, there are many themes raised, but one prodominant question is whether or not Father Flynn touched any of the boys, specifically Donald Muller.  He denies this, and it's never officially stated in the play, but our small group in class found a variety of examples that hint at the opposite.

It starts when Father Flynn says that the reason Donald had alcohol on his breath wasn't because he gave it to the boy, but because he caught the boy drinking the alter wine.  He didn't want to report the incident because he thought that would look bad on the perish, and the cardinals (or whoever is the next highest level, I'm not sure) would look down upon Sister Aloysius because she is the principle of the school.

Later on, when Father Flynn is having a conversation with Sister James in the courtyard, he attempts to justify his actions, claiming that there were "circumstances beyond your knowledge."  He also seems to have interest in only one boy (Donald), as seen when he asks Sister James how he is doing in her class.  When she turns the conversation to Sister Aloysius showing concern because she cares about the child, Father Flynn replies with frustration, "Its me that cares about that boy."  Even at the end of the scene, there is a large black crow (sometimes seen as a symbol of one's conscious), which he yells at to be quiet.  This could be that either his conscious is telling him to go to Sister Aloysius and explain what happened with the alter wine (thereby clearing his name if he is, in fact, innocent), or it could be telling him that he knows what he did was wrong, and he should simply come clean with it and take the consequences.

Later, Sister Aloysius calls Father Flynn into her office.  When she can't coerce a confession out of him (using evidence such as the alcohol on Donald's breath and the fact that Father Flynn had been through five perishes in the last three years), he turns offensive and starts to verbally attack her, rather than turning defensive, as someone who is hurt from the accusations would have.  When she says that she is going to call someone higher up, he stops her.

Finally, when Sister Aloysius calls Father Flynn into her office for the last time, she lies by telling him that she called his previous perish.  She tells him if he doesn't want to lose everything, he will ask for a transfer, which he later does.  If he hadn't been guilty of something, he would have continued to fight her, but I doubt (no pun intended) that he would have transfered for the sole reason that he was tired of putting up with her accusations, as some others (not necessarily in the class) seem to believe.

Ivan's Inquisitor

As a class, we decided that as humans, we desire bread, someone to worship, a community of worship without discord, and something to live for.  But what about the freedom of choice?  Is it something we desire, or simply something that, especially as Americans, we've always known and therefore take it for granted?

Ivan's Grand Inquisitor comments that the freedom of choice conflicts with happiness.  He tells the prisoner that by taking away the people's freedom of choice, he thinks he is making them happier because he believes that people don't actually want their freedom, but they want to believe they still have it.  So he gives them the impression of freedom without the responsibility of it, because he also believes that nothing has made man more upset than freedom.

In contrast, the Inquisitor challenges his prisoner of not caring for the people by giving them their freedom.  While Jesus didn't give people what they desired to be happy, he instead gave them what He thought they needed.  He resisted the three temptations, and the Inquisitor shows his contempt of these actions clearly to the prisoner.

But why take everything out on the prisoner?  Is it simply because the Inquisitor witnessed the miracle of him raising the child from the dead?  If that is the only proof, does that therefore mean that this prisoner must be Jesus, come back for Judgement Day?

Ivan has told his opinion throughout his stories in 'The Rebellion' that people are cruel to each other and cannot love their neighbors.  And yet, people still need to follow others; they need a leader.  Like when we choose what we are going to wear.  Day by day is our own choice (unless there is something specific going on such as the 'color day' my high school used to do in which each class would wear a different school color), but our overall wardrobe carries trends set by others, from people in our high school to people in the fashion industry.

Point is, almost every person I know feels like they are an individual.  They do what they want, when they want, and don't necessarily care who knows about it or what anyone thinks about it.  But with everyone telling our generation to 'find ourselves' and 'be unique', if everyone thinks they are unique, does that mean we're all conforming in our uniqueness?  Because eventually, people will always choose what makes them comfortable (which is usually following the crowd and not being someone who stands out), rather than decide what would be best for themselves.

Morning Devotional

I meant to post this a long time ago, like many of the notes that I take in class, but it's never too late.  Anyway, this is from when we read "The Enchiridion" by Epictetus.  I found eight things that I found really meaningful to me that I could work into my mornings (or nights, since mornings don't usually go too well for me).

#8:  "Don't demand that things happen as you wish, but wish that they happen as they do happen, and you will go on well."

In other words, one shouldn't dwell on dreams, but instead stick with reality, otherwise we might lose ourselves.

#9:  "Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice."

I took this to mean you have the choice to look past misfortunes as minor obstacles, or you can look at misfortunes and see them as an unclimbable wall.

#10:  "With every accident, ask yourself what abilities you have for making a proper use of it....  If you hear unpleasant language, you will find patience."

With this and the other examples given, it seems to mean that by asking yourself what abilities (or virtues) you have, you will help yourself enhance your virtues, and lead to a more fulfilling life.

#15:  "Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party."

When I first read this, I laughed.  I thought it was completely ridiculous, but once I finished with this specific entry, I realized that it made sense.  It basically talked of the old saying 'good things come to those who wait'.  But this also took it a step further, mentioning that if one could hold out a little more than normal, "you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods."  In other words, the reward will be much better and more satisfying.

#19:  "You may be unconquerable, if you enter into no combat in which it is not in your own control to conquer.... for, if the essence of good consists in things in our control, there will be no room for envy or emulation."

What I thought Epictetus was trying to say was that only things in our control can be given the power to cause happiness.  In other words, we can't control what others receive, and we therefore shouldn't envy what others have.  In it's other examples, he also seems to be saying that power doesn't equal happiness, and we should not wish to have power, but accept it if it comes our way.

#20:  "Remember, that not he who gives ill language or a blow insults, but the principle which represents these things as insulting.  When, therefore, anyone provokes you, be assured that it is your own opinion which provokes you."

In other words, don't give an enemy the power to lower your self- esteem, for you are the only one with the power to allow it to be lowered.  Don't let others' comments get to you, and instead brush them off, realizing the person is likely jealous of what you have.

#42:  "When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty....  Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived."

I really liked this passage (which also goes with #20).  In my opinion, it basically says that if someone insults you, don't take him seriously because you are who you are, and you should stay that way.  The reason he insulted you is because he doesn't know you, and that isn't your fault in any way, shape, or form, so don't let it get you down.

#43:  "Everything has two handles, the one by which it may be carried, the other by which it cannot."

From this sentence, he seems to be saying that we have two options, and only one is right.  But from the example he supports this with, it gave me a different interpretation.  He talks of a brother who 'acts unjustly', and that, even though he was wrong, we should help him anyway because "he was brought up with you."  I'm confused though if he's saying we should help him because he is family, related by blood, or if we should take the high road which will lead to a better life.