*NOTE: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, BUT I'VE READ AND SEEN THE PLAY*

Just because it happens doesn't mean Shanley is saying it's okay. It's actually the opposite-- the fact that she "gets away with it" because she has doubts and is human at the end of the day doesn't make it excusable, it makes it all the more horrifying, because that's how real life is. Real people with real doubts holding positions of real power can do what they feel and maintain their status quo. That's a frightening, post-9/11 mindset.

The point of making her "human" and giving her legitimate doubts is to keep her from being a one-dimensional villain, since those types of people don't exist in real life. Most of the time, the villains believe they are doing something for the greater good.

At the end of the play, we're still unclear as to whether she made the right decision. But it's the making of that decision, and her victory sans evidence, that shakes us up just as much as the prospect of a child being molested under our noses.

I'd re-examine the flick. It's easy to get thrown for a loop if you immediately think that the priest is innocent... but it's not evident in the play that he is, and I'd be surprised if Shanley changed that for the movie. Clearly, the actor playing the priest is acting in a more sympathetic manner... but the sister has doubts for a reason.

I just think that Shanley would never "condone" the sister's actions in as simple a way as you perceived.

*NOTE: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, BUT I'VE READ AND SEEN THE PLAY*