The Penitent (TCG Edition) Read online

  CHARLES: I . . .

  KATH: But, I’m your wife, Charles? Can you cure my suffering? Because I don’t understand. I only know that I can’t take any more. Because I don’t understand. You understand. I envy you.

  CHARLES: I’m so sorry, Kath.

  KATH: And I wish I could pray. Like you. But I don’t know what to pray for.

  CHARLES: You could pray in any case.

  KATH: And I’m a sinner.

  CHARLES: You’re the best person I know.

  KATH: Is that what your rabbi would say?

  CHARLES: Yes. He might.

  KATH: How would he know? He doesn’t know me. All that I know: the boy? Of all of us, is the only one who might find peace. Maybe he was always in a state of peace. It was only those whose lives he touched that he destroyed.

  CHARLES: How can I help you?

  KATH: I told you. But you won’t do it.

  CHARLES: I’m doing what I think is right.

  KATH: And I can’t leave the house.

  CHARLES: What would you like me to do?

  KATH: What difference does it make?

  SCENE 4

  Charles and Richard.

  CHARLES: The patient, the patient tells you things. Can you unhear them? No. And as much as your interest may be in a pathology, still, they inform you, morally about the human being; (Pause) and may awaken prejudices.

  RICHARD: No, I asked you a question, Charles. Do you remember what I asked? It could be answered “yes” or “no.” You need to keep your answers short. To “yes” or “no” if possible.

  CHARLES: Yes. You said.

  RICHARD: Let’s start again . . . “The analyst may form opinions.”

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  RICHARD: “But is trained not to act upon, or, differently, to suppress them in the interest of aiding the patient.”

  CHARLES: That’s incomplete, but, yes, that’s correct.

  RICHARD: “. . . you took an oath.”

  CHARLES: I did.

  RICHARD: “As a physician . . . to care for the suffering. And never to reveal . . .”

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  RICHARD: “Those secrets which . . .”

  CHARLES: You know, I often wondered who the injured person was.

  RICHARD: You find this process interesting? Charles? It will be much less interesting on the stand.

  CHARLES: No, I know.

  RICHARD: No, you don’t know: a deposition is a fishing trip. No case was ever won in a deposition. Many were lost. Let’s practice. Answer the questions, as you’ll have to, yes.

  Or no. “The injured person” . . .

  CHARLES: . . . I’m not speaking about the child’s act . . . I’m . . .

  RICHARD: Is the accused a child?

  CHARLES: The young man.

  RICHARD: But you just called him a child.

  CHARLES: He’s not a child.

  RICHARD: In his mind?

  CHARLES: “In his mind.” Yes.

  RICHARD: “Is that a medical opinion, Doctor?” You see? You make a random comment. And they’ll employ it to take you apart. The smarter a man is—the easier it is for opposing council to destroy him. Charles? You can’t fool a stupid man. The smart man? Will find provocative opportunities for discourse and the other fellow will use them to make him seem a fool. The only way. To control it, is to answer Yes. Or. No.

  CHARLES: And that’s what it all comes down to?

  RICHARD: That’s right.

  CHARLES: All of my thoughts about “treatment.”

  RICHARD: Answer yes or no.

  CHARLES: All my supposed “training”? A young man. Suffering. Came to me for help . . .

  RICHARD: Then why don’t you help him?

  CHARLES: Why didn’t I help him?

  RICHARD: No. Why don’t you help him? Now?

  CHARLES: By testifying. For him?

  RICHARD: Yes. And be done with it.

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: I’m tired.

  RICHARD: You’ll be tired at the deposition.

  CHARLES: You know, they train you. Or they used to. To function when you’re tired. You’d be on a three-day rotation. You were so tired. But you still had to make decisions. It gave you confidence. But it’s inevitable. That one makes bad . . .

  RICHARD: They may ask . . .

  CHARLES: . . . sometimes . . . makes bad decisions . . . I’m sorry?

  RICHARD: They may ask do you know: Why did he do it?

  CHARLES: Why does anyone do anything? Because they want to. Have I missed something?

  (Pause.)

  RICHARD: Off the record?

  CHARLES: All right.

  RICHARD: Do you believe in psychiatry?

  CHARLES: I believe that any professional bears the shame of the questionable worth of his ministrations. I know of my racket what you know of yours: that, for the most part, we are paid for the ability to keep a straight face. While accomplishing little or nothing.

  RICHARD: Yes. That’s right.

  CHARLES: Two sides hire two opposing whores to testify. The jury picks the fellow in the better-cut suit.

  RICHARD: That’s what the legal process is. That’s all it ever was. What else could it be?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: She’s so concerned about me.

  RICHARD: As she should be.

  CHARLES: And you said you could help her.

  RICHARD: As a friend.

  CHARLES: But how could you help her?

  RICHARD: I could talk to her.

  CHARLES: But: you couldn’t tell her everything.

  RICHARD: Ev . . .?

  CHARLES: About the case.

  RICHARD: Of course not. No.

  CHARLES: Because?

  RICHARD: You know why.

  CHARLES: Our communications? Are privileged.

  RICHARD: Yes.

  CHARLES: As were mine with the boy. And yet they want me to divulge them.

  RICHARD: But you could not help the boy unless he told you everything.

  CHARLES: And “how can you protect me if I cannot tell you ‘everything’”?

  RICHARD: That’s right.

  CHARLES: But I took an oath. And. If I “tell you everything,” what is to prevent “the law” from extorting, from you the same confidential information, which it wants from me? Or, or actually seizing my files?

  RICHARD: They might take the files.

  CHARLES: What?

  RICHARD: They . . .

  CHARLES: I don’t understand.

  RICHARD: They . . .

  CHARLES: . . . but they’re protected. By law.

  RICHARD: It would be tried in court.

  CHARLES: Tried? When?

  RICHARD: If they subpoenaed them.

  CHARLES: You’re telling me, that if the government came in and demanded my, confidential records, they might end up in court? The files?

  RICHARD: They might.

  CHARLES: . . . and you don’t see that’s an outrage?

  RICHARD: All right, yes, it’s an outrage. What do you wanna do?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: What if they were lost, the records?

  RICHARD: You don’t want to do that.

  CHARLES: No. I’m not saying I would, but . . .

  RICHARD: . . . why, why would you consider that?

  CHARLES: . . . as an “act of conscience”? If the government . . .

  RICHARD: . . . an act of conscience. But there’d be a penalty.

  CHARLES: . . . for?

  RICHARD: Obstruction of justice. If you, if someone . . .

  CHARLES: No, no. I’m saying, if before they were requested, if the files were lost . . .

  RICHARD: Wait, wait. Stop.

  (Pause.)

  They’d put you on the stand, and you’d either have to acknowledge your act or commit perjury. Either of which choices would send you to jail . . .

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: You said if I made “the statement” I’d be done.

&nb
sp; RICHARD: I was wrong. I’m doing the best I can.

  CHARLES: And so it never ends. And they’ll torture me. Till they’ve convicted me of something. In the public mind. Or driven me mad, or . . .

  RICHARD: . . . I’m sorry.

  CHARLES: . . . me or my wife.

  RICHARD: How is she?

  CHARLES: . . . because of a misprint.

  RICHARD: How is Kath?

  CHARLES: Not well.

  RICHARD: You may have to give up the files.

  (Pause.)

  Charles, you may . . .

  CHARLES: No, I heard you. Thank you.

  SCENE 5

  Charles and Kath.

  KATH: Tell me again.

  CHARLES: They may subpoena my records.

  KATH: What does Richard say?

  CHARLES: That’s what he says.

  KATH: Can they?

  CHARLES: He thinks they can.

  KATH: All right. They’d take the records to show . . .?

  CHARLES: To show, my . . . my . . .

  KATH: Your . . .?

  CHARLES: State of mind.

  KATH: Your state of mind, your . . .?

  CHARLES: Yes. To show prejudice, or . . .

  KATH: I . . .

  CHARLES: Against the boy . . .

  KATH: That you were prejudiced against him.

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: Because he’s gay.

  KATH: But you never said that.

  CHARLES: No.

  KATH: But he said that.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  KATH: In his “letter.”

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: And you never wrote that it was an “aberration.”

  CHARLES: That’s right. But they think, or they pretend to think, in my files, they may find something I said, which . . .

  KATH: Why are they doing it?

  CHARLES: Someone suggested that they could revert to savagery and call it the pursuit of justice. That is the definition of a mob.

  KATH: I can’t accept that.

  CHARLES: No? Then you tell me why they’re doing it.

  KATH: Give up the files.

  CHARLES: I can’t.

  KATH: Well, yes, you “can.”

  CHARLES: I have to fight for them.

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: Because I took an oath?

  KATH: Ah-huh.

  CHARLES: Yes. That’s right.

  (Pause.)

  KATH: Are they going to “win”?

  CHARLES: It makes no difference. Do you understand? Or there’s no end for me. For me, or for any physician . . .

  KATH: You’re not thinking.

  CHARLES: I’ve . . . They keep escalating their demands. Into an inquisit . . .

  KATH: But . . .

  CHARLES: They’re trying to destroy me. It’s nothing I’ve done, they . . .?

  KATH: I don’t underst . . .

  CHARLES: I’ve explained it to you.

  KATH: Explain it to me again. I’m stupid.

  CHARLES: I don’t think you’re stupid.

  KATH: Well, I fucking must be stupid, ’cause the whole thing is a mystery to me.

  CHARLES: They’re trying to divert attention from the boy.

  KATH: But at some point it has to stop.

  CHARLES: He still has to stand trial. Yes.

  KATH: So let him and let them try him. And go along. In whatever way they tell you. Doing whatever they ask. For as long as it lasts. To let them. Do whatever they like. To the boy, who . . .

  CHARLES: I know that you think I’m a fool.

  KATH: I don’t think you’re a . . .

  CHARLES: But. I. Have. To make a stand. Somewhere. I . . .

  KATH: Why?

  CHARLES: Or else. It’ll never stop. See what they’ve done now?

  KATH: What have they done now, Charles?

  CHARLES: Richard hasn’t told you?

  KATH: What have they done?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: It seems. They’re suggesting my refusal to cooperate may be a violation of his civil rights.

  KATH: Who is?

  CHARLES: The defense.

  KATH: Oh no.

  CHARLES: Yes.

  KATH: Wait.

  (Pause.)

  Because he’s gay . . .?

  CHARLES: . . . which Richard says is a brilliant move on the part of his defense.

  KATH: And what does Richard say you should do?

  CHARLES: Richard can’t help me.

  KATH: Who can help you?

  CHARLES: I won’t testify for the . . .

  KATH: I understand. I understand that, but I don’t understand why.

  CHARLES: YOU DON’T HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT, YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT . . . CAN’T YOU STAND WITH ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD?

  KATH: Don’t you fucking scream at me. I’m not your adversary. I’m just . . . I’m just . . . Call them up now, and tell them, that you . . .

  CHARLES: That I’ll “what”?

  KATH: That you’ll do whatever they ask.

  CHARLES: It’s too late.

  KATH: That you’ve had a “change of heart,” or . . .

  CHARLES: I said it’s too fucking late.

  KATH: Or that your “rabbi . . .” I don’t give a damn . . .

  CHARLES: I can’t do it.

  KATH: Why can’t you do it?

  CHARLES: What does it “matter,” why? If you won’t list . . .

  KATH: Please.

  CHARLES: Because it’s an inquisition.

  KATH: That’s a religious term . . .

  CHARLES: . . . and to give into it is immoral.

  KATH: Which means they want you to “defy the Word of God”?

  CHARLES: All right, yes.

  KATH: Did you tell them that? Charles . . .? Did you tell them that? . . .

  SCENE 6

  Charles and an Attorney.

  ATTORNEY: Now, I’d like to ask you about religion.

  CHARLES: All right.

  ATTORNEY: You call yourself a religious man?

  CHARLES: I would.

  ATTORNEY: Would you call yourself a zealot?

  CHARLES: A zealot. No.

  ATTORNEY: A zealot being one inspired by zeal.

  CHARLES: . . . I wouldn’t think so.

  ATTORNEY: You do not feel yourself “inspired by zeal”?

  CHARLES: I . . .

  ATTORNEY: You find yourself inspired?

  CHARLES: Perhaps. Sometimes.

  ATTORNEY: By what?

  CHARLES: Perhaps by love.

  ATTORNEY: The love of God.

  CHARLES: All right.

  ATTORNEY: And how do you know God? How does one know God?

  CHARLES: Through God’s word, through . . .

  ATTORNEY: You feel inspired by the Word of God.

  CHARLES: I do.

  ATTORNEY: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

  CHARLES: I don’t know.

  ATTORNEY: You don’t know if it’s the Word of God.

  CHARLES: That’s right.

  ATTORNEY: But you feel “inspired” by it.

  CHARLES: I do.

  ATTORNEY: And you’ve testified you read it daily.

  CHARLES: I also read the newspaper.

  ATTORNEY: Is it the Word of God? The Bible?

  CHARLES: I don’t know.

  ATTORNEY: But you “believe” in it.

  CHARLES: I study to understand it.

  ATTORNEY: And those passages you may not understand. There must be passages that you don’t understand? . . .

  CHARLES: There are.

  ATTORNEY: How do you treat them?

  CHARLES: I . . .

  ATTORNEY: Or say, those passages which you might find objectionable. Are there such passages?

  CHARLES: There are those I find disquieting.

  ATTORNEY: As, for example?

  (Pause.)

  CHARLES: Nadab and Abihu.

  ATTORNEY: Nadab and Abihu. The sons
of Aaron.

  CHARLES: Very good.

  ATTORNEY: Their story is?

  CHARLES: They offered up “strange fire” with their prayers. And were slain.

  ATTORNEY: For their impertinence. In disobeying the Word of God?

  CHARLES: Perhaps.

  ATTORNEY: Or for interpreting the Word of God?

  CHARLES: Perhaps.

  ATTORNEY: The Israelites were directed by God to offer incense in a certain way. Nadab and Abihu improvised or embellished God’s instruction. And the Torah says they were consumed by fire. And as a rational man. You say you found this disquieting. The Bible lesson: “Do exactly as God says or perish.”

  (Pause.)

  Is that the lesson?

  CHARLES: The Bible, may be understood as the Constitution of the Jewish Faith. And there are . . .

  ATTORNEY: The Constitution.

  CHARLES: And there are three thousand years’ worth of amendments or “clarifications.” The Midrash, the Talmud, Kabbalah . . .

  ATTORNEY: When did you begin your studies?

  CHARLES: Is it pertinent?

  ATTORNEY: Well, we’ll see . . . But the lesson here is that Nadab and Abihu brought interpretation, or, say, reason to these Commandments of God. And so were consumed. It’s quite a cautionary tale. Is it not? To those who might consider questioning God’s Will. Is that what you learn from the Bible?

  CHARLES: I’ve said, the Torah . . .

  ATTORNEY: Is that what you have learned?

  CHARLES: Has been continually amended . . .

  ATTORNEY: Do . . .

  CHARLES: Our Supreme Court once ruled that blacks were slaves, and must, if captured, in the North, be returned to their slave masters.

  ATTORNEY: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

  CHARLES: I believe, at the least, it is divinely inspired.

  ATTORNEY: How does that differ from “the Word of God. Which must be obeyed”?

  CHARLES: The works of Chopin are divinely inspired. Who would deny it? The works of Michelangelo, the . . . If we say, as we do, they are divinely inspired, if all great art is so, are we debarred from saying it of the Bible? What is the difference?

  ATTORNEY: Works of art do not carry instructions and prohibitions.

  CHARLES: . . . If . . .

  ATTORNEY: What is the lesson you would take from the story. Of Nadab and Abihu?

  CHARLES: There are many lessons to be . . .

  ATTORNEY: What is the lesson for you now? In the tale of these two men? Who dared to “interpret” the Word of God and were slain for their presumption?