>Yes, that's exactly it. Because no matter if he did anything
>with Donald Miller or William London, the film implies he did
>something very wrong sometime, thus demonstrating how
>dangerous change can be. The message of the film endorses
>keeping things status quo, while privately doubting if you're
>right, rather than taking the risks that go along with change.

He technically wasn't ousted though, he left on his own terms. Again, maybe if he was innocent he left because he decided there was no possible way to salvage a working relationship with a Nun with whom he'd HAVE to work (which there wasn't). And he wouldn't want to have a battle with her about it, because just the suspicion of guilt if made public would ultimately destroy his credibility and reputation. He could have just decided that it'd be better for himself to move on and have one crazy nun wrongly think he was guilty than have a whole community wrongly think he was guilty. Why fight if your alternative is to get a promotion and put a person hell bent on falsely accusing you behind you.

Obviously I don't know if any of that happened, but neither do you. Thats the point. The movie itself took no stance. It didn't just not tell you what happened, it gave multiple clues on both sides of the story that one could use to support his or her argument on either side. That alone is proof of its neutrality.