Whether the priest or the boy was gay is irrelevant to whether or not abuse took place. In the U.S. court of law someone is found guilty if all members of the jury are confident BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they in fact believe the person to be guilty. Of all those privy to the matter (the nuns, the monsignor, etc), only Meryl Streep’s character was confident beyond all doubt that guilt was evident (until the end of course in which the projection of her actual doubt was ambiguous).

Some could say (as some did comment above) that the priest gave less than transparent answers to the nun during her line of questioning. While some could perceive that as indirectly admitting guilt, it could also have been true that the boy confessed circumstances of his own life to the priest in confidence by which the priest was bound not to reveal. Some also claim (as did Streep’s character) that guilt was inherent due to the priest’s reluctance to fight the matter and accept the “sentence” granted him by the nun. However it could be argued that the priest chose to avoid destroying his reputation and sending an entire parish into turmoil and “DOUBT”.

Grant’s response above in my opinion is disingenuous and alludes to guilt based on the fact that it would make the move “beautiful” and otherwise frivolous. I disagree completely in that the movie is already a masterpiece given that is has generated so much thought and discussion as is evident through this thread.

The bottom line is that every scene in the movie was carefully orchestrated so as to promote ambiguity and ambivalence. We can all have opinions on the actual guilt or innocence of the main character, but any conclusion that is drawn is devoid of evidence (including actual testimony of the boy) and made with subjectivity and/or internal biases.

I thought several times during the film that the filmmakers had not made his guilt sufficiently plausible, if ambiguity was their goal. Though I think ultimately, they need it to tilt towards innocence because that is maximal contrast to the determined certainty of guilt from Beuvier.

Streep’s character is motivated most likely by a strong personality turn after her husband’s death in WWII. She was apparently NOT a nun before that. The standard conflict there is ‘if there is a god, why does he do such horrible things to people so close to me?’ She is wrestling with her desire to have all things be ordered and have meaning, including her husband’s death. At some level her certainty which defied the actual evidence in the case of Flynn triggers her tearful episode at the end where she acknowledges that there may not be the certainty of a god.

One key piece of evidence leading me toward his evidence: when the boy is sent from Sister James’s class to the office, and he comes back upset and swearing, after seeing Viola Davis in the office. This tells me something: I think perhaps Hoffman found the two boys committing sexual acts at some point, and drinking the whine.. Maybe all of Hoffman’s actions in this film are to cover up their relationship. He would rather have just Streep think he’s a sexual preditor than have EVERYONE know these two boys were having sex; it would ruin their lives. And most of his actions can explain this– His constant “there are things you don’t know!” and his covering up for his actions without ever explaining anything. And, I’m sure the boy would take being kicked out of the alter boys over having everyone know this. And, perhaps his mother (Davis) knows what really happened too! So, she’s accepting his punishment so she can hide the truth from her husband. She also keeps telling Streep to leave it alone, let it be, my husband would beat my son if he found out the truth. Is this a possibility??

But, the one thing that pushes me back the other way, is the incident where Streep supposedly called his old school. Having heard this, Hoffman is upset and finally gives in– this implies that he did do something at his old school. BUT!!! Perhaps he sees this as his way out. Maybe if he acts as thogh this has proved him guilty, and pretends that he did something at his old school to completely satisfy Streep, he can resign without having it all come out. This could be his way of ending it, and ensuring that the truth doesn’t get out.

Just my alternative explaination! Having written it all down, I think this is the way I will interpret the film; he is innocent, he is protecting the relationship between the two boys. The seen where the boy swears and goes back to the classroom is just so weird! And seemingly out of place.