Doubt, Indulgence

I think there is something more to be said on the subject of indulgence which I had not followed through with in class.
The scene with the tea and sugar seems to point at a certain amount of indulgence in Father Flynn's character. Three lumps of sugar and long fingernails (which may or may not be a sign of effeminacy, but displays a sign of being both clean and more so a small sort of vanity). Not being Catholic I can only generalize about the accepted behavior of members of the clergy, and it would seem that any sort of indulgence would be unacceptable, or at least there would be a strong attempt to do everything in moderation in order to curb indulgence, even when it comes to something so simple as sugar. It just seems that if Father Flynn lacks that sort of decorum, lacks the reservation and self-control in even the smaller aspects of his life, whether it be in his consumption of sweets or in minor narcissistic tendencies, then he would not hesitate to indulge in other more serious ways.
It seems as if he is also very presumptuous and takes liberties, such as when he sat down in the chair behind Sister Aloysius' desk during the chair scene. He's very sure of him self to the point of being very rude and self-important, marking his place as the superior in the scene and even seeming to disregard Sister Aloysius' own position of power. And upon leaving the scene he does not opt to talk to the monsignor about the situation and settle it in that manner, but instead states that he will suggest that Sister Aloysius take a break from her job. Seems as if there are some power plays going on in Doubt, mostly Father Flynn making a play for power over Sister Aloysius and she in turn trying to circumvent a structured church hierarchy that is will not support her, right or wrong, in order to do what she thinks is right. In one of the last scenes Father Flynn also instigates a private meeting with Sister Aloysius, which is clearly against the rules, and granted I could appreciate a private conversation in order to resolve a conflict betweeen two people, but if he was innocent and had nothing to hide he shouldn't have had a problem with there being a third party present. If we could arguably see all of these as indicators of an abuse of power, then to what extent could Father Flynn take that abuse of power, especially over those who are most vulnerable to his influence?
At first I was like Sister James during the tea scene, relieved that there was a logical explaination for what had happened and quick to accept it. There seemed to be evidence to the contrary later on in the story, especially in regards to Mr. McGinn. Father Flynn said that it was Mr. McGinn who had caught Donald Muller with the wine, but it was later reveiled that Mr. McGinn had known that the boy had been drinking, but had not caught him in the act nor did he know the exact circumstances as to how he had acquired the wine. So this doesn't do anything to prove Father Flynn's innocence. While I agree that Sister Aloysius is a hard-ass and had taken some great liberties and stepped out of bounds in order to weasel him out, I don't feel that she was entirely out of line, she did what she had to do and that meant breaking some of the rules of the church and general social rules. As far as I'm concerned she called his bluff, if he was trully innocent he wouldn't have accepted to leave so readily faced with the knowledge (which was a lie) that Sister Aloysius knew something about his past, had confirmed it with other nuns at other parishes, which was breaking the rules, but while he pointed his finger at that he broke rather quickly. No, Sister Aloysius was unable to really stop him in the end and he moved on to become pastor at another parish, but she got him out of her school and away from those children which was her immediate concern. If faced with the choice it is better to damage his reputation in order to protect the children. But remember, it never really got out and she never managed to question his reputation to a wider audience. He wound up safe.

Doubt 1

I'd have to say that the character I sympathize the most with is Sister James. She seems so innocent and trusting and, yes, naive. The reason I sympathize with her the most is because she seems to be a good teacher, someone I would like to learn from because she is so invested in her teaching and her students and seems like she would be a fun teacher. But it is because of her naivity that makes her so succeptable to the lies of others, she can't think anything but but good of anybody and she will willfully fool herself into believing Father Flynn, so long as it could erase a terrible situation and provide a logical explanation she can preserve her illusion of reallity. Or at least the illusion that within the church there is an immunity to such horrible things.
I think the gender roles in the play are interesting, and the ways in which the hierarchy within the church is very gendered and how that hinders Sister Aloysius in her crusade.
I don't know who I really admired, it seems like a combination of sister Aloysius and Sister James. I liked Sister James for reasons stated above, she is sweet and loving. I disliked Sister Aloysius, but had a grudging respect for her. Though she was cold and distant she wasn't unfeeling, she cared about the welfare of those around her and refused to just let things be. Next two questions, not really sure.
And last but not least, I believe to doubt can only make the realization of truth of faith all the more stronger, and shows a healthy individual character who refuses to accept anything at first glance. This, however may not be the true meaning of Tillich's statement.

Abortion

This is a severly tough subject to tackle, even for someone who has a decided opinion on the topic. I'm going to come right out and say that I am pro-choice (which is not what many call pro-abortion, which is a misnomer, and a terrible misconception of the idea). No one, not even pro-choicers are okay with the idea of an abortion. It is under what conditions is it acceptable is the issue, not whether it is good or bad.
My personal feelings stand on the basis of the rights of the mother. It seems that many have lost sight of the fact that the mother is also a living being, with her own rights to her body and her life. There are some on the pro-life side who say that even in the eventuality that the mother will die it is still not acceptable to have an abortion. So much for being pro-life, especially since in many of these cases the baby will most likely die with the mother. I'm going to use the case of one of my cousins for example, who has some sort of unusual condition that makes being pregnant poisonous to her body and therefore unable to carry a baby to full term and also running the risk of killing herself. Would it be wrong for her to have an abortion then, if it were to save her life? I'm going to use various examples from my family because they seem to have a lot of trouble with fertility and childbirth. My mother, when I was in elementary school, had what is called an ectopic pregnancy (or tubal pregnancy) when the feritlized egg implanted itself in the fallopian tubes (tubes leading from the ovaries) instead of in the uteran wall. This condition, if the fetus is left to grow instead of being removed, is fatal to the mother at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and therefore to the baby as well. Only option here is an abortion.
My grandmother was faced with life/death situation in which the doctors told her she would most likely not survive giving birth to her third child. My mother was her second child and when going into labor she suffered something called placenta praevia, when the placenta attaches itself in a certain way to the uteran wall, and when the water breaks it tears open the blood vessels in the uterus and results in severe hemmoraging (the same thing happened to my mother when she gave birth to my brother). My grandmother did die giving birth to my mother, but they were able to bring her back and she was told not to have any more children, because next time they may not have been able to save her. And of course, by a freak accident, she became pregnant and they advised her to have an abortion, which she refused so my grandparents where sent back to America (grandpa was in the navy, and they were stationed in Scotland) so that grandma could say good-bye to her family in the event that she did die. All of these stories have a happy ending, for those of you who are reading this and possibly feeling sad. My grandmother gave birth to my uncle with no problems other than he was a very big baby, my brother was born safely (though my mother almost hemmoraged to death because several doctors and nurses left her sitting in the hallway of the hospital). Mom ended up having an abortion for the ectopic pregnancy, and my cousin, the one with the condition that made pregnancy poisonous to her body, has successfully given birth to two children the first was premature (which was expected given her condition) but she gave him up for adoption which she regrets, and the second she managed to carry to full term without any complications and who just turned 2 years old this week.
Of course none of these really illustrates the im/morality of abortion, other than these are legitimate life/death situations in which having an abortion is/would be morally acceptable. To disregard a woman's reproductive rights in any instance is wrong, and to say that protecting her own life by getting an abortion is wrong is thereby disregarding her status as a human being with a right to life. Historically a woman's body and health were not treated seriously. She has been a possession, a vessal for the continuation of a family line, it was her husband who controlled her life and reproductive capablities. Women's health has also been very misunderstood, even during times of medical advancement, such as in Victorian England, where doctors where beginning to make breakthroughs in medicine, but they were only allowed to examine a woman only where her skin was exposed, which was difficult because victorian dress women were covered from throat to feet, with only her face and hands being exposed. Nore were they allowed to perform autopsies on women, so they knew very little about how a woman's body functioned compared to that of a man's. To cut a long story short, my defense of pro-life is on a woman's right as a living entity to her own life and body. And it's not just the term of pregnancy we are talking about, it's literally the rest of her life, or at least until the child reaches adulthood. I wouldn't suffer a rape victim to not only carry and give birth to her rapist's child, but to be forced to raise that child. It would be an extraordinary woman to do that without hatred and resentment, what kind of environment is that for either mother or child? And the physical damage it does to the body, often disfiguring, let alone the emotional/hormonal stress and the physical stress it places on the body. A pregnant woman is supporting two bodies and the baby gets what it needs first, even at the harm of the mother. I know of a woman who lost all of her teeth because the baby had drained calcium from some of her bones.
I guess what I'm getting at is less philosophical than what the authors have been getting at, but I feel rather strongly about Thomson's essay. The analogy of the violinist with the bad kidneys was good. Under what circumstances would I myself have an abortion? I can't claim definite answers to any situation, I can't know how I'll choose if ever faced with the situation. If I were raped, I think most definitly yes, for reasons I stated above. If I were to become pregnant now, before I've finished my education, I don't know. I'm not in a position to be able to care for a baby, I can't support it well without a career and being tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but I feel that if I did have an abortion I would regret it for the rest of my life, because I did kill my own child. What about adoption you say? I wouldn't suffer any child to be in the American adoption system, I've heard too many horror stories to subject any child to a life of parentlessness and a feeling of being unwanted, to foster or adoptive homes where they could most likely suffer horrible abuse, or the rare eventuallity that they end up in a home with loving parents who decided not to adopt from asia.
I'm done for the night.