Pop-Cultured Catholic #6: The German Thriller “M” and Catholicism’s Conditions for Mortal Sin
Back during my college years, one course I took was “ART 324 History of Film: Origins to 1965”. As part of the class, we were assigned to watch “M”, a 1931 German thriller directed by Fritz Lang. Near the end of the film, there is a trial scene which I found very thought-provoking and relatable to my topic for today, regarding the Catholic Church’s conditions for mortal sin.
I found this clip of the movie’s famous trial scene, and I will post the link here, then share its context and my analysis below it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkBL9VVhkPI
The plot of “M” is catalyzed by a string of mysterious child murders in Berlin that leaves the public gripped by terror. Under mounting pressure, the police work overtime to find any potential clue to the serial killer’s identity, which leads to them raiding the seedier parts of town more frequently. In turn, even the local mob bosses are spurred into finding the killer, in hopes of ending the police investigations. When the criminals organize their own manhunt, they recruit beggars to watch over all the children in the area.
The killer is eventually found by one person, who pretends to trip into him and secretly marks his coat with the letter “M” (Mörder, "murderer" ), enabling a vigilante mob to capture him and hold a kangaroo court trial. The killer turns out to be a seemingly ordinary citizen, Hans Beckert, played by Peter Lorre. As he is about to face his “sentence”, Beckert breaks down into an emotional speech, where he claims to suffer from involuntary psychotic episodes. During these episodes, he would lose control of his thoughts, commit a murder, and then have no memory of his crime, until the inevitable newspaper reports would briefly trigger it and cause the horrified man to write cryptic letters for the police.
During the mock trial of mentally fractured killer Hans Beckert, two important questions are raised, the first of which concerns who is worse, a person committing an objectively more grave crime with less control over himself or someone committing lesser crimes by free choice with full understanding. While delivering his speech, Beckert calls out how the many mobsters participating in his vigilante trial are monstrous in their own ways: “Who are you? Criminals? Are you proud of yourselves? Proud of breaking safes or cheating at cards, things you could just as well keep your fingers off? You would not need to do all that if you’d learnt a proper trade, or if you’d work if you were not a bunch of lazy bastards. But I can’t help myself. I have no control over this, this evil thing inside me, the fire, the voices, the torment… I want to escape from myself but it’s impossible!”. In other words, Hans Beckert’s crimes of child murder are gruesome even by many of the mobsters’ standards. Yet Beckert also expresses disgust towards the mobsters, who do not struggle at all with psychosis or other mental illnesses like he does, yet freely choose to live as parasites who rob, swindle, extort, and commit violence.
The other question raised is whether the state should or even justly can punish a man, who is arguably not culpable for his crimes. At another point during the vigilante trial scene, Beckert's designated defense attorney makes the following argument: "The defense lawyer will speak. Our very honorable president, who is I believe wanted by the police for three murders, claims that because my client acts under an irresistible impulse... he is right (that he should be sentenced to death). He is mistaken because it is that fact which clears him... (It) is this very observation that makes my client not responsible, and nobody can be punished for something he can't help... I mean this man is sick, and a sick man should be handed over not to the executioner but to the doctor. No one can kill a man who is not responsible for his actions, not the state and certainly not you". In response, the onlookers angrily asks if the "lawyer" has any kids himself, what would happen in the event Beckert's compulsion comes back after he is declared "rehabilitated" and released, etc. One question on my mind was whether Beckert could still be considered culpable for not turning himself in directly, during his moments of lucidity and horrified awareness, versus leaving messages for the police.
With the ensuing argument, the trial descends into chaos and the people try to lynch Beckert, before the police intervene in time and the film is left to end on a somber note. After the police raid the place, having acted upon their own leads, we cut to a public hearing about the arrest of Hans Beckert. It is left ambiguous whether Beckert is to be executed, imprisoned for life, or mentally institutionalized. Whatever happens, an old woman attending it laments, "This won't bring back our children. We too, should keep a closer watch on our children". The screen then fades to black.
Out of the many old movies I have seen, "M" is one which most indirectly illustrates the equal importance of Catholicism's three conditions for mortal sin: 1.) The sin beings of objectively grave matter; 2.) The person having sufficient knowledge and understanding of the sin's gravity; and 3.) Sufficient consent of the person's will. It is these three requirements which make the difference between venial sins, which merely wound one's relationship with God, versus a mortal sin that cuts someone off from their state of grace, singlehandedly threatening their very salvation unless one repents of it before death. Hans Beckert's crimes could arguably be examples of sins, which meet the second condition and more than meet the first condition, but may not necessarily meet the third condition. From my understanding, factors like duress, addiction, compulsion, coercion, and temporarily impaired judgement/awareness can mitigate spiritual culpability for a sin. Meanwhile, the mobsters' crimes pointed out by Beckert are comparable to sins, which do not meet the first requirement as extremely as Beckert's, but appear to definitely be committed with full knowledge and consent.
From a Catholic perspective, perhaps it is most fitting that the question of whether Hans Beckert or the mobsters are the worse criminals at heart is not answered for the audience and, instead, left open to interpretation. The doctrine of mortal sin outlines how the objective gravity of a sin, the person's knowledge, and the consent of the person's will are all equally important factors. Not to mention, every individual who commits a sin does so with so many varying degrees of objective gravity, knowledge, and consent mixed together. Also, each person's heart may harbor various levels of different virtues and conflicting thoughts, which can affect how motivated they might be to repent and how close they (still) might be to God. Due to all these factors, there are sometimes no cut and dry answers, as to which criminal is in a worse spiritual state compared to the other. So that is up to interpretation, which only God himself can definitively make.
If you would like to see more of the movie itself or more commentary on it, I am linking these additional YouTube videos too.
"M (1931) The Fritz Lang Classic - Monster Madness 2019" on James Rolfe's Cinemassacre channel on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpA4tH5D9fk
"Courtroom scene of M dubbed in English by Peter Lorre"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1CBIgyz8A
"M - Full Movie - B&W - Mystery/Suspense - Fritz Lang - Peter Lorre - German with English subs (1931)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSL9FvCv0U
