Do you believe Michael redeemed himself in GF III

This is more of a hypothetical question, and seeing that in today's world, not everyone, including myself; I grew up Catholic, is religious I would like your input on the fate of Michael Corleone's soul. As I stated myself I am not religious anymore, but am fully aware of Catholic doctrine especially in the area of forgiveness and redemption. I think we can all defiantly say Michael was truly sorry for all the evil he did. There is the scene in GF III where Michael speaks to Don Tommasino's lifeless body, and promises to do no more evil. But then shortly thereafter he passes his power to Vincent and gives him the authority to do what is necessary to solve the problem at hand. Did Michael have anything to do with the murders in the end of GFIII or was that all Vincent's doing? Lastly do you believe Michael went to Hell?

Hell???

I don't believe that Michael was sorry for ALL the evil that he had done. I think the only act that he couldn't reconcile within himself was Fredo's murder. That was the only act of evil that he was truly sorry for, as we see in his confession to Cardinal Lamberto.

No, he wasn't sorry for all the evil that he had done. And, what's more, while confessing that he had Fredo killed, he tried to rationalize it by saying, "He injured me." That didn't strike me as a sincere confession. I think Cardinal Lamberto sensed it, too. He said:
"Your sins are terrible, and it is just that you suffer. Your life, could be redeemed, but I know that you don't believe that. You will not change."[emphasis added]. The Cardinal absolved him, but I don't think that was sincere. Michael pledged to do no more evil--but not to the Cardinal, but to the dead Mafioso, Don Tommasino.

Vincent, not Michael, gave the orders to whack all the people at the end. Perhaps it meant that Michael had given up on violence? Or did he simply approve the killings by not telling Vincent, "I've turned over a new leaf--let's forgive and forget."

TB, I disagree with your interpretation of Michael's confession. While he did say that he had Fredo killed because he had injured him, I don't think he was trying to justify the murder to Lamberto. Instead, I think he was trying to impress upon the Cardinal how deep his transgression was - that he had killed his father's son for such a trivial reason. I think he was trying to impress upon the Cardinal how beyond redemption, what a terrible sinner, he truly was.

Yeah, Mike was simply telling the Cardinal why he had Fredo murdered. I think he was sincere. But how many confessions did I go to in my lifetime? You catholics, how many did you go to? Were you truly sorry? i know I wasn't always so because I went out and committed some of the same sins again. All those Hail Mary's and Our Father's and Rosaries didn't necessarily preclude my commissionof the same acts again. And TB, I agree that Mike was simply turning everything over to Vincent to carry out. But I have not doubt that Mike helped plan it.

I think Michael mentioned that Fredo injured him as an excuse for what he did. He was trying to rationalize. He always tried to rationalize. In the end he fooled no one but himself.

As for the killings in GFIII, Vincent technically gave the order, however it was Michael, who upon learning of Tomassino's death, told Calo, who was demanding vengence that some day he (Michael) would ask a favor of him. Calo gave his life to kill Lucchese, and whether it was Vincent or Michael who actually gave the order doesn't relly matter. In that scene in the background look at Kay's face. She and Michael had just formed some kind of peace between them, and suddenly the moment was broken by news of more violence and of a new vendetta. It was Kay who famously once said "All this must
stop!" Her expression in that scene in III was an expression of knowledge that "all this" was never going to stop.

Note also in that scene with Kay, Michael is trying to rationalize. "My father was in danger....what could I do?" Well, he could have told SOnny he wanted to remain a civilian and left town.

I think it boils down to this: Was Michael truly repentant?

In my opinion, the answer is no. So if you're going to look at this from a strictly Catholic point of view, Michael's sins were grave enough to banish him to eternal damnation. If you're going to subscribe to Catholic Dogma, i.e., Heaven and Hell, Michael couldn't be saved unless he was truly sorry. And he wasn't.

He knew what Vincent was going to do, "because I can't do it anymore." In other words: Get it done, but don't tell me the details, because just I got a pin from the Pope and I wanna get into Heaven.

Jeez, can you tell I went to a Jesuit college?

You did the Jesuits proud PB! You are correct. The sins recited in Confession are not forgiven unless the person confessing the sins is truly sorry in his heart for committig them AND he truly intends never to commit them again. I do not think Michael met either criteria.

The moment he killed Sollozzo he was going to "Hell"

Murder is a mortal sin that leads to Hell unless one is sincerely sorry FOR HAVING OFFENDED GOD. Now, I maintain that there's a heck of alot of people who are going to hell for having committed mortal sins because they were not sorry for having offended God. Doing pentence is not enough.

This thread while a good one, is just another indication that GFIII was nothing more than a patronizing 'wink' to the fans, throwing in references to the previous films that it was thought they might want to see.

(And further justifies Al Pacino's very involved theory as to why it should not have been made.)

Michael was not at all 'sorry' for the 'evil' he did, because I don't feel he really thought of it as 'evil'. Over the years, he had done what he felt he had to to protect and build his 'Family'. When he speaks over Don Tommasino's coffin, and then 'passes' his power to Vincent (and even that he does in part to stop Vincent from seeing Mary) IMO he appears to be more tired of it all than anything else. Not so much defeated, but perhaps after all that he had conquered, Tommasino's murder simply took the wind out of him. And yes, maybe regretful, but not over what he had done, but that because of it he had hated and feared, not loved and respected like Tomasino or his own father.

As for Fredo's murder...he was not making an 'excuse' with the 'injured me' phrase, but giving a reason for it. Excuse and reason are two different things. And Fredo had injured him and by the way, nearly destroyed the Family in the process, and his killing was absolutely justified. Michael would definitely have had to live with some degree of guilt that this was, after all his mother's son and his father's son, and yes, his own brother. I think that guilt was apparent almost immediately after shots are fired, and we see him lean back in his chair. But the killing itself had to be done.

That entire scene with Kay - one of the few really good ones in the whole movie - conveys far more beautifully how Michael felt about his life than that out of character, overemotional, fabricated confession.

Apple

All true. You and I have always agreed that the murder of Fredo was justified from Michael's perspective as a Mafia Don, protecting his personal family, and Mafia family, from perfidy and mortal danger. Had he let Fredo live, Fredo could have been--and IMO, would have been--a danger down the line.

But, from the viewpoint of this thread--did Michael redeem himself?--it made little difference in confession if he was explaining or excusing Fredo's murder. Either way, in the context of confession, he had committed a mortal sin. If he was looking for absolution, did he achieve it in his exchange with Cardinal Lamberto?

Yes, I agree with you, Apple. From the point of view of a Mafia Don, Fredo's murder was justified. And from a Godfather film fanatic's point of view, I agree he had it coming. But that's not what this thread is about. The question is, and I really don't think you can give a fair answer to this question unless you're a person af faith, do you think Michael redeemed himself in the eyes of God?

The answer is no. He was an unrepentant murderer. He committed Mortal Sin after Mortal Sin. The originator of this post deliberately pointed out Catholic Doctrine. Michael was Catholic. So let's look at it from that perspective. If you're not truly repentant, you're not forgiven. If you commit a Mortal Sin, go to confession and get absolved, then plan on doing the same thing again and again, according to Catholic Doctrine, you're not forgiven.

As far as Michael not really thinking of his behavior as "evil." You're absolutely right about that, too. But that's the very definition of a sociopath. If Michael depended on a court hearing to get into Heaven, the prosecutor would quickly point out that ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you from it.

If Michael Corleone were a real person, and he's not in Hell, then I don't know who is.

How about Ray Bones?

Ray might make Purgatory. God protects the stupid and the drunk .

I'm not stupid and Im not a fuckin drunk. So what the fuck am I doing here? Do you know who I am? I'm Ray Bones! I don't like staying in this fuckin waiting room.
I'm from Miami fuckin beach but its hotter here than it is there. Will someone put on a fuckin air conditioner? I wanna know: When the fuck do I get out and when the fuck to I get to the perly fuckin gates?

Well, thank the Lord I'm a "person of faith" (born & raised Roman Catholic)...

I agree, the answer is absolutely NO, he did not redeem himself.
In addition to all you mention above, most memorable in my mind is his standing Godfather to his nephew, claiming to 'reject Satan' on this baby's behalf...while fully aware of the murders that are being committed on his own orders at the very same moment. (Not to mention the murder of this child's father which will also soon take place - justified or not).

I don't think Michael did or said anything in his later years that brought him even close to receiving absolution. In fact, to respond to Turnbull's question, I doubt he even sought it. Didn't the Cardinal literally prod that 'confession' out of him?

Was he redeemed in the eyes of his sister? Yes. As his only living family member I would bet Connie's forgiveness via that comforting speech as she gave his injection was far more important to him than that of any 'God' he might've been raised to believe in.

Apple

Your being Catholic gives you a better window than some, but any faith will do . I just don't think one of our resident Atheists could give an objective answer without turning this thread into a free-for-all.

And yeah, the Baptismal scene. How freakin' blasphemous was that?!

The ceremony in which he got a Papal medal for which he paid a hundred million dollars was, as Kay put it, "disgraceful." By the way, I understand there is an Order cause I thouof St. Sebstian, but its primary rule is you can only get in through meritorious conduct and nomination by a member of the order. It is strictly forbidden to buy your way into it. I wionder if FFC and/or Puzo knew this. It adds a nice plot twist, but giventhe slopiness of the rest of GFIII I doubt it.

BTW for all you Catholics out there, when I was a kid Whenever I got a plenary indulgence (like for making nine first Fridays)
I always gave it to the person last in line in purgatory because I thought whoever it was would be very grateful to me, and would help me out.

Ever the lawyer.

Trying to bribe a bunch of 9 year olds with promises of virgins. Oops, wrong religion .

Pb .. Now I'm curious .. which religion would tht be?

...money talks in any faith, in any languate.

donTOMasso, you know you surprise me -- if anything in this life is certain -- if history has taught us anything -- it's that you can buy anybody. Turnbull?

They may have known it or maybe not. However, it's quite possible a man like Michael would've paid some member handsomely simply to nominate him.

Here's what Michael says to Kay in Sicily:

"...You couldn’t understand, back in those days. I love my father. I swore I would never be, a man like him, but I loved him. And he was in danger; what could I do? And then later, you were in danger. Our children, we in danger. Look at it. You were all that I loved, valued, most in the world. And, I’m losing you. I lost you anyway. You’re gone, and it was all for nothing. So – you have to understand, I had a whole different destiny planned."

Here he is justifying everything he did 'back in those days' with the statement that he loved his father. I don't see that he regrets or is sorry for any of it, except for the fact that he 'lost' Kay. At no time is he repentant for anything...only sorry because his ex-wife 'dreads' him.

Redemption? Absolution? Nope. Not in the cards for this puppy.

While absolution was POSSIBLE for Michael, if he truly was sorry for what he had done, admitted his wrongdoings and promised to sin no more, but he wasn't any of those things. Therefore, he could never truly be forgiven in the eyes of God.

How do you know? Did you talk to that God?

Yes, I speak quite frequently to my God, actually; however, we've never bothered analyzing Michael's confession in any of our chats.

As a Roman Catholic, I was strictly speaking about the rules of the confessional and how they applied to Michael's confession.

Refer to opening post, which originator of the thread specifically reached out to those familiar with Catholic doctrine in which Michael Corleone was also raised.

So I would say that SB was more than qualified to give the answer she gave.

Apple

SB is right, but that's the trick. How do we judge the sincerity of someone's contrition? As SB says, Michael did not appear (based on his subsequent actions) to have abandoned his sinful ways. So, his contrition is in doubt. He amy have fooled or misled us, but God is (supposedly) omniscient and can't be fooled.

Bingo, Olivant.

Confession is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card by any means. If it were, what would be the point? You have to mean it. You can fool others; even yourself, but not God.

Both veiws have their respective merits.

But as for Michael, it's made very clear that he did NOT believe that he could be forgiven for the sins he committed. Cardinal Lamberto tells him that he has nothing to lose by attempting a confession. It's only when Michael confesses that he "killed his father's son, killed his mother's son" that he breaks down.

However before giving that confession he asks the Cardinal "What's the point of confessing if I don't repent?"

Then right before he confesses about killing his brother, he says " Nah, it's useless."

Then at the end of the confession, after giving him absolution, Cardinal Lamberto recognizes that Michael does not believe that he could be redeemed, that Michael does not believe that he will change. And he tells him so.

I do believe that Michael was repentive for being responsible for Fredo's death, but was not repentive for any of the other sins that he committed throughout his life.

No, confession and absolution does not give one a get out of jail free card if that person is not truley repentive and willingly continues to commit those same sins.

If you really look at it, as far as Catholic doctorine in regards to confession goes, Michael was NOT a hypocrite in that area. He did NOT want to confess because deep down he knew that he would not change.

But again, I really do believe that he was sincerely sorry for what he had done to Fredo.

I would agree he may have been sincerely sorry for having done it to his brother, but not repentant that it had to be done.

In other words, by stating to the Cardinal that Fredo had 'injured' him, I think he was saying that had he had to do it over, he would do the same exact thing.

Apple

I'm catholic but had not been attending church regularly for some time now. But I do believe that Michael was really sorry for Killing His brother and for his other 'sins' that he confessed too. Will he sin again? Yes he would.... Will he be absolved. I can't answer that. The cardinal was right though. It would not hurt to confess. Just my humble opinion on the subject. Some may agree or disagree.

When I went to confession, I was trully sorry for my sins and repented. Would I commit the same sins again? Yes. Such is human nature. If we did not commit the same sins again, then we would be saints.

The confessional is all about INTENT. If you are truly sorry and INTEND to not commit those sins again, then you are forgiven. If you do give in to temptation and do it again, then you simply need to confess again.

Yes. Exactly. If you seek repentance in your heart and are truly sorry for what you've done, I believe that GOD will forgive you. As you say above, if you stumble and give in to temptation, then GOD will once again forgive you as long as you are truly repentive for your sins and are sincere about not going out to intentionally commit them again.

But if you walk away saying that it's ok to go out and do it all over again because GOD will forgive you anyway, than that's not being repentive, it's not being truly sorry.



Which brings me back to Michael and the whole exchange between him and Cardinal Lamberto. I really believe that Michael was truly sorry for what he did to Fredo. It's quite evident that he hurt inside for having him killed. We see it when he has the diabetic stroke, at the point in the confession when he does break down talking about Fredo, and I believe in a deleted scene when he is sitting with Connie and she is giving him his diabetes shot. I really think that he was trying to find forgiveness for the horrible sin that he committed against his brother, but because he could not forgive himself for it he could not bring himself to believe that God would fogive him for it.

As for the other sins, he makes it very clear that he knows that he really will not change and will go out and continue committing them.

Then I guess that answers the question outlined in the opening post.

No, Michael Corleone did not redeem himself.

He ended up way he deserved to, which is incredibly tragic, considering the way he lived his life was so completely opposite that of what he had intended all those years ago, as a young man enlisting in the Marines.

Apple

That raises an interesting, albeit tangential, point:
We did see a somewhat innocent, even playful, Michael in a deleted scene in GF when he's frolicking in bed with Kay and getting her to pretend to be a telephone operator so he can delay going to his parents' home for Christmas. But the Michael who enlists in the Marines in the flashback scene at the end of II may have an idealistic purpose--but his demeanor is that of the cold, imperious, controlling Don Corleone of GFII ("you talked to my father...about my future?").

Sure, he was born with and always had that element, otherwise he could never have evolved into his eventual 'destiny' as 'Don Corleone' in the first place.

In fact I would even venture that he enlisted knowing full well that his father wouldn't like it one bit. Rebellion as well as ideology.

However, regardless of family background, there aren't too many young men who would not be just as indignant as Michael was after being told that his father and stepbrother had been vigorously planning his own future behind his back (and that includes the unrequested deferment).

Apple

That's why he was the son most like his father. He had a mind of his own. A strong will of his own. Michael reached a point in his life, just like Vito had, where he decided that he was not going to let anyone else shape his future.

Which again, leads full circle to the tragic irony of his final days.

Hmmmm. Tragic for Michael, yes. But as far as Vito, I don't feel that HIS final days were tragic at all.


As I said Michael was the son MOST like his father, but not COMPLETELY like his father. Michael lost the ability to differentiate how a decision he would make for THE FAMILY would affect the family.

Vito on the other hand had the abiltiy to differentiate and realize how the decisions that he made THE FAMILY would and could affect the family.

Of course tragic for Michael! That's who this thread is about, yes?

Except possibly for the loss of Sonny (which even then was a residual of 'the business'), no one could possibly refer to any aspect of Vito's life, up to and including his final days and even his death...as 'tragic'.

Apple

Except maybe seeing his brother executed while burying his father and then right after that his mother getting blown away.

Yes, all that too.

Which frankly I almost mentioned but, since I was referring more to Vito's adult lifetime and its comparison to Michael's, decided against it.

To bring this thread back to Michael's redemption, or lack thereof...

I do not see how, based on what we are shown, Michael could have been redeemed. I agree with DC that he was sincerely repentant about killing Fredo, but not his many other grave sins, especially the killing of Sollozzo and McCluskey, which he later casually justifies to Kay ("he was in danger; what could I do?").

Actually, in that scene with Kay says that he is NOT looking for forgiveness from God, but from her.

MICHAEL

I want you to forgive me.

KAY

For what?

MICHAEL

Everything.

KAY

Oh, like God, huh?

MICHAEL

Oh, I – I need something a little closer. You couldn’t understand, back in those days. I love my father – I swore I would never be, a man like him – but I loved him. And he was in danger; what could I do? And then later, you were in danger. Our children, we in danger. Look at it. You were all that I loved, valued, most in the world. And, I’m losing you – I lost you – anyway. You’re gone, and it was all for nothing – so – you have to understand, I had a whole different destiny planned.

So Michael was not sincere about repenting before God, but was sorry about what his choices did to his relationship with Kay. I'm not Catholic, so I'll leave it to others to determine whether repentance based on the loss of a partner is sufficient for redemption.

Another question: Lamberto does not give Michael any penance. Is that not a necessary part of the confession process? Or did Lamberto feel that Michael's guilt was sufficient penance? ("Your sins are terrible and it is just that you suffer.")

Confession is at the Priest's discretion, LW.

Example: When my Mom was dying, I ended up in the hospital with chest pains, which turned out to be anxiety. Anyway, to be on the safe side, they kept me for a few days. When the Priest came around, I decided to make confession. I was such a mental wreck between my mother being in a cancer hospital, being in the hospital myself, and whatever anxiety meds they gave me, I couldn't even remember the words to the Act of Contrition (this, after 17 years of Catholic school ). Anyway, I ended up breaking down to the guy, hysterical, I'm not ashamed to admit. He told me he could see how sorry I was for my life and my sins, and he just sat and talked to me and held my hand. He didn't give me a penance. Of course, I didn't kill my brother, but I'm not sure that would have played into it.

PB YOU committed Sins?????????

Okay, let's put Mike's redemption in perspective. Many on the Board have claimed that Mike wasn't sorry for his sins or that he was only sorry about murdering Fredo. In any case, what constitutes "sorry"? Let's use a real time example. How many Board members engage in non-marital sexual intercourse? Quite a few I imagine. Now, of those who do and who are Catholic, you know that each time you do so you are committing a mortal sin. If you die with the stain of a mortal sin on your soul then you are going straight to Hell. Now, to keep that from happening, you go to confession, right? But how long is it before you go out and engage in such sex again. So, having done so, does that mean that you were not sorry for having offended God when you confessed (which means that you probably lied to God - uh, oh!) or that you were sorry, but just can't resist the temptation of a roll in the hay? I'll bet it's the former. In the same vein, was Mike sorry for murdering Fredo and committing all those other mortal sins? I think that his murder of Fredo haunts him, but I don't think he was sorry that he offended God any more than you were when you confessed to non-marital intercourse.

Right on, olivant!!!!!!

What did olivant say today that was different from what SB and I originally said?

In the general sense, nothing.

However, I was mostly applauding the reference to Fredo's death at the very end. The statement that Michael is haunted by the murder is, I feel far more accurate than that of others who prefer to believe that he is 'truly sorry' for it.

Your feelings hurt?

WTF is that for?

No, not at all! Just didn't realize that you were replying more so to his reference to Michael and Fredo's death, that's all.

Obviously.

Getting back on topic, I believe Michael's "remorse" was at best the "remorse" criminal show when they speak before they are about to be sentenced. Yes, they are truly remorseful, but the cause of the remorse is that they are now facing the consequences of their wrongdoing, and not remorse for what they did wrong.

No one has raised this but it is entirely possible that Michael was "playing" Lamberto. After all he needed Lamberto's help to seal the Immobiliare deal, so when he invited Michael to confes his sins, Michael the manipulator could have been doing what was necessary to get Lamberto to do his bidding. It would also make sense that he would later tell Connie of his "confession" because he o desperately wanted to appear "legitimate." It also had the effect of getting a confirmation from Connie that she was on board with the fiction of Fredo's unfortunate "drowning."

There's no doubt that Michael saw Lamberto as necessary to close the Immobiliare deal. But I don't think he counted on having Lamberto force a confession from him. He may have briefly considered telling Lamberto no on the confession, and then thought better of it, believing it a condition of getting the Cardinal's support. But I think his emotions were genuine at the time he was making confession.

Dt, how would confessing that you murdered your brother serve one's plan to manipulate the one to whom you are confessing. Also, 20 years later he needs confirmation from Connie?

I'm not sure this theory holds water.

For one, Michael's emotions are clearly real, as evidenced by his subsequent words and deeds. The confession set in motion (or at least accelerated) Michael's decision to give up the Donship, which was hardly something Michael would manipulate towards.

And, if it was a charade, what did he have to gain by continuing it with Connie, his closest confidante? Nowhere else does he contrive to appear legitimate to her. As far as "getting a confirmation" from her is concerned, to what end? And, in any case, she brings up Fredo on her own. Michael speaks very generally about the confession.

I feel there is little doubt that he is truly tormented by his decision to have Fredo killed.