By the way, I'm going to discuss plot points of the film, which I'm not sure are in the original play or not.

>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.

That doesn't seem to be what Shanley is suggesting. Take the opening monologue by Father Flynn. Sailor's boat sinks, he escape on a life raft, without a compass, navigates by the stars as long as he can, then clouds come, and he goes in the direction he believes is right. All along the way, he has doubts he's going to the right way. But in the end, he makes it. He's right. Throughout the film, there's lots of stuff about storms coming, and winds howling and gusting. Not so subtle. Then the story progresses as you know it does. That seems to suggest, at least, to me, that Shanley believes even though Sister Aloysius isn't doing the popular thing, and though she may have private doubts, in the end, she's taking the right course of action.

>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.

By the time Sister Aloysius is crying about doubt, they've already humanized her by showing early conversations of how she does care about the Miller's kid physical well-being (she's worried he'll get beaten up by the other kids), her care for the other nun that's going blind, and the allusions to her past (her dead WWII vet husband) and her past sins (vaguely mentioned during the climactic scene with Father Flynn). By showing her breaking down at the end, and then relating it back to Flynn's opening speech, Shanley comes full circle in letting her off the hook. Meanwhile, the nun who's now convinced of Flynn's innocence (after suggesting the infraction in the first place) is shown as being completely naive and unable to deal with the reality of the cruel world.

>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.

Again, whether the Father Flynn did or didn't do it was really the least interesting part of the movie for me. I figured out before I ever sat down and watched it that it was going to be completely ambiguous and there wasn't going to be an answer. If anything, I'm more inclined to think that Shanley knows that priest did do it (Shanley has said only he and the actor that play Father Flynn ever really know if he did it or not) because honestly, I've seen enough TV/movies/plays where the story is constructed so that the person is the sympathetic is really is guilty.

Personally, as I've said above posts, I think the whole "Did be/didn't he do it" was a red herring for a play/film that was really about fear of change.

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

I'm saying that as I interpreted the script/film/story, Shanley doesn't admire Sister Aloyisius' actions, he does believe that it's okay to cheat and deceive, as long as your intentions are good, and as long as you harbor your own doubts and share them, God is willing to forgive you for your trespasses, because doubts are human.