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.