Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

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

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Our response to the death of Pope Francis
00:01:29
On the Lookout for Sins of Speech - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Hello! I'm writing a book at present on sins of speech for Emmaus Road. I've been thinking a lot about cultivating healthy habits of communication, so just thought I'd share a few thoughts. Prayers for you during this Holy Week!

00:20:01
The Practice of the Presence of God - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

There are various different prayer practices that people have used in the tradition as a way of remaining in the presence of God--the practice of the presence of God (or recollection) is just one. In this video, I explain a little how it helps us to connect the dots between earthly life and heavenly realities.

00:19:43
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent
Meme Monday

… okay. This isn’t a meme. Just my heart’s deepest longing. Also I’m aware that it’s Wednesday.

post photo preview
Daniel O’Connor

Apparently, Daniel has recorded a video about me canceling him from my show. I haven’t watched it, nor will I, But I was shown a screenshot of an edited message from me to him which I think makes my communication with him seem harsher than it was. Here is his version, mine is beneath. I wish Daniel well.

April 24, 2025

I have resigned from my job. I would appreciate some prayers as I start a new phase in my life. I'll be looking for my next programming gig shortly. Thanks.

post photo preview
Candor and Charity: Reflecting on a Papacy

In a recent article by Archbishop Charles Chaput in First Things, he reflects on the legacy of Pope Francis in this moment between pontificates. He was both charitable and candid—two things we desperately need right now.

I have personal memories of Pope Francis that I greatly value: a friendly and generous working relationship at the 1997 Synod on America when we were both newly appointed archbishops; his personal welcome and warmth at Rome’s 2014 Humanum conference; and the extraordinary success of his 2015 visit to Philadelphia for the Eighth World Meeting of Families. He devoted himself to serving the Church and her people in ways that he felt the times demanded. As a brother in the faith, and a successor of Peter, he deserves our ongoing prayers for his eternal life in the presence of the God he loved.

There’s a real tenderness and respect here. And it’s a good example of how disagreement with a pontificate shouldn’t involve hostility toward the pope. Sadly—though not surprisingly—I’ve seen more than a little of that in comment sections online.

He continues:

Having said that, an interregnum between papacies is a time for candor. The lack of it, given today’s challenges, is too expensive. In many ways, whatever its strengths, the Francis pontificate was inadequate to the real issues facing the Church. He had no direct involvement in the Second Vatican Council and seemed to resent the legacy of his immediate predecessors who did; men who worked and suffered to incarnate the council’s teachings faithfully into Catholic life. His personality tended toward the temperamental and autocratic. He resisted even loyal criticism. He had a pattern of ambiguity and loose words that sowed confusion and conflict.

In the face of deep cultural fractures on matters of sexual behavior and identity, he condemned gender ideology but seemed to downplay a compelling Christian “theology of the body.” He was impatient with canon law and proper procedure. His signature project, synodality, was heavy on process and deficient in clarity. Despite an inspiring outreach to society’s margins, his papacy lacked a confident, dynamic evangelical zeal. The intellectual excellence to sustain a salvific (and not merely ethical) Christian witness in a skeptical modern world was likewise absent.

What the Church needs going forward is a leader who can marry personal simplicity with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ, a leader who has a heart of courage and a keen intellect to match it. Anything less won’t work.

I love that. “A leader with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ.” Amen!

May the Holy Spirit lead the cardinals in choosing our next pope. And may Pope Francis rest in the peace

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Pope is Dead

I got a text from my sister this morning: “The pope died.” I stood there for a moment just staring at the words. I then went to the internet, thinking maybe it was a rumor or a mistake.

But it wasn’t.

Pope Francis died this morning at the age of 88. He passed away in the Casa Santa Marta, the residence inside the Vatican where he had lived since his election in 2013. He had been suffering from a number of health issues in recent years, including a recent case of pneumonia.

His death marks the end of a 12-year papacy, and now the Church enters the period known as sede vacante—the seat of Peter is vacant. Cardinals from around the world will soon gather in Rome for a conclave to elect the next pope. No one knows who it will be, but we should be praying: that the Holy Spirit guide their decision, and that the next pope be a faithful shepherd for the Church in these difficult times.

Pray this prayer with me for the soul of Pope Francis:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Read full Article
post photo preview
7 Terrible Arguments For Atheism

I’ve heard plenty of arguments for atheism over the years—some thoughtful, some clever, and some… well, let’s just say I used to rattle off the worst of them back when I was an angsty 17-year-old agnostic.

Today I want to look at 7 terrible arguments for atheism—the kind that sound good at first but fall apart when you give them more than five seconds of thought.

1. "Who created God?"

This question misunderstands what Christians (and classical theists) mean by “God.” God, by definition, is uncaused—the necessary, self-existent being who causes everything else. Asking “Who created God?” is like asking “What’s north of the North Pole?” or “If your brother is a bachelor, what’s his wife’s name?” It’s a category mistake. The question only makes sense if God were a contingent being—just one more thing in the universe that needed a cause. But He isn’t. He’s the reason anything exists at all.

2. "I just believe in one less god than you."

This is clever-sounding but logically shallow. The difference between atheism and theism isn’t about the number of gods one believes in—it’s about the kind of being we’re talking about. Christians reject all finite, tribal, man-made gods too. The Christian claim is not that God is just one more being among many, but that God is Being Itself—the necessary, uncaused source of all reality. Saying, “I just believe in one less god than you,” is like saying, “I contend we’re both bachelors—I just have one less wife.” The difference between one and none isn’t minor—it’s everything. Atheism isn’t a slight variation on theism; it’s a rejection of the entire foundation of existence.

3. "Science has disproven God."

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals