Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • 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
Spiritual Direction - Lessons Learned at SEEK - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was at SEEK in DC this past week. As is my tradition, I got hilariously sick and managed to learn some sweet lessons along the way : )

00:21:44
January 02, 2025
Studio Update Video
00:01:50
December 30, 2024
Quick short update
00:02:09
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

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Ryder Larson, a 16 year old who killed himself this morning. Please also pray for my nephew Pacer, Ryder has been his best friend since they were little and Pacer, plus the whole Rogers family, are very hurt by this. Ryder was LDS, so likely doesn't have people praying for him now.

Broken Catholic Man Needs Help. Today I reached an emotional and godless breaking point. I got angry at my wife, yelled at her, and our four kids between the ages of three and fifteen witnessed it. It was not quick or brief, but pervasive and prideful. It has been four hours since the tirade on my part and my wife and I are feeling awkward talking to each other. This does not happen more than once a year, and I want to effect change. Looking for prayers, and references to anger management books, teachings and even counseling with a Catholic foundation.

January 10, 2025
Studio update

Working away on the new studio. First step, covering up all these beautiful windows 😭

January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for 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