Religion, Violence, and The Godfather Saga

It is well known that images of religion and violence are intertwined throughout key moments of The Godfather saga. At the end of the first movie, Michael Corleone attends a baptism as godfather while his orders to commit the unprecedented murders of top mafia bosses systematically takes place. This theme intensifies somewhat in the second movie, as the young Vito Corleone kills Don Fanucci in early 20th century New York at the same time a prominent priest is administering an outdoor Mass and benediction during the Madonna procession. At the end of the movie, Fredo Corleone is reciting the Hail Mary on a small boat when he is shot in the back of the head on the orders of his brother Michael. The interweaving of religion and violence comes to full fruition in the third and final movie. Again, during a Madonna procession in New York, there is a shootout in which Joey Zasa is killed by Santino Corleone's illegitimate son Vincent. At the end of the movie, as the Corleone family watches Michael's son perform the lead role in Cavalieria Rusticaha (an opera filled with Christian imagery), an assassin (disguised as a priest) quietly kills a number of people and ultimately kills Michael's beloved daughter on the steps of the concert hall. In addition, on the orders of Vincent, a corrupt archbishop is murdered inside the Vatican itself.

This interweaving of religion and violence in all 3 movies has been fodder for a variety of interpretations about what the director, Francis Ford Coppola, is trying to tell us. Is he suggesting that religion and violence go hand in hand? Is he trying to contrast the goodness of religion with the evil of violence? I suspect there are numerous legitimate interpretations of this theme. In the remaining part of this post, allow me to give you my interpretation, and then comment on why this whole issue might have applicability beyond a coffeehouse debate.

I don't think Coppola is suggesting that religion directly causes violence with premeditation, or even that religion is indifferent to violence. Instead, what he may be trying to say is that the outward expressions of a compromised religion are ultimately ineffective in stopping violence. Consider the following:

1) If Coppola was using these movies as a vehicle to condemn religion generally, the Cardinal Lumberto character in the final movie doesn't make much sense. Cardinal Lumberto is clearly portrayed as a 'true priest', a good man, someone who is not corrupt, and genuinely cares about the physical and spiritual well being of people as evidenced during Michael Corleone's confession to him. When Lumberto becomes Pope, the corrupt elements in the Vatican quickly see him as a threat, rather than someone they can manipulate or even someone who will just look the other way and not rock the boat. Predictably, violence comes to visit Lumberto precisely because he provides no comfort for those who are corrupt and violent.

2) In addition, Tom Hagen's son, who maintains a cordial personal relationship with Michael Corleone, heads off to Rome to enter the priesthood. When Michael's new consigliere tells the son to keep him apprised of the Vatican's affairs from the inside, Michael nixes the idea on the grounds that Hagen's son has 'the true faith'. It is actually quite startling that a man as completely morally compromised as Michael Corleone still has the ability to discern purity from corruption. I think this says something about Coppola's view of religion as well.

3) At the beginning of the second movie when the boy Vito is smuggled out of Sicily for his own protection, the older people who are protecting him seem to be faithfully religious, saying that they are praying for Vito's safety. These people are not just superficially praying for Vito, they are risking their own lives in aiding his escape.

So Coppola is giving the impression that he believes authentic, faithful, heartfelt religion is still a force for good in the world. But of course, these hints are juxtaposed by clear indicators that religion has also compromised itself and has been corrupted as a result. Consider this:

1) The Corleone family has their own family priest. This priest officiated at the baptism in NY at the end of the first movie, and then officiates again at Anthony's first communion in Lake Tahoe years later at the beginning of the second movie. While the priest seems like a nice guy, he can't be oblivious to who he has chosen to associate with. Given that the Corleones have a long history of buying influence, it is a reasonable deduction that the priest has been compensated in some earthly way for uniquely providing his services to a mob family. And of course, the outward trappings of baptism and communion do nothing to change the violent nature of the family.

2) Most obviously in the third movie, the archbishop is thoroughly corrupt and is heavily involved in a scheme to defraud Michael Corleone out of $600M. At the beginning of the third movie, Michael is presented with a prestigious medal from the Catholic Church in recognition of his 'charity work'. Michael's 'Vito Corleone Foundation' is ostensibly devoted to helping poor children in Sicily, but in reality, it is primarily devoted to bribing church officials, most notably the archbishop, to grease the skids for Michael's planned takeover of a major European business conglomerate that the Church has a major stake in. As Michael's bitter ex-wife Kay later observes, this is a disgusting ceremony because she knows Michael is trying to buy respectability and the Church is more than willing to partner in this unholy effort if it means they'll be richer for it.

3) In a number of places in the second movie, priests are friendly with known mob bosses. This is true of Fanucci and of the young Vito in Sicily. Again, priests are depicted as being entirely too cozy with prominent crime figures they must know are heavily involved in brutality.

4) In the third movie, the assassin, who is disguised as a priest, easily blends in with other priests who are attending the opera. While these other priests do not know he is an assassin, it is still a bit unnerving that an assassin with a well known reputation can so easily blend in among priests. We get the impression that the priests are oblivious to the monster that's in their midst, and lack any level of discernment and interest in getting to know this man who has suddenly latched onto them in order to get into the opera house and go on a killing spree.

So it seems to me that Coppola, while certainly not anti-religious, is still giving us a very difficult but sage message. Coppola seems to think that while there is a true and good religion, and that this religion does have its faithful followers, it is the exception rather than the rule. And because the majority of religion has chosen to be cozy with corrupting agents who commit violence, it has largely lost the ability to effectively combat corruption and violence. Again, it's not that religion causes violence or is indifferent to it. It's that religion can't stop violence because it is impotent to do so because of its compromise with evil men. Particularly with the first movie's baptism, and the murder of Fanucci in the second movie, we have this impression of religious ceremonies blissfully taking place while violence occurs all around it, with religion being powerless to stop it. It's as if religion is largely out of touch with what's going on all around it because it itself is too compromised to see how ineffective it is. In Coppola's world, violence wins because the 'true faith' has become entirely too rare and has been largely replaced by a compromised cultural, ritualistic, and/or civic religion that has lost its good power due to its unholy accommodations.

This message is obviously relevant for us today. Whether it's violence, corruption, sexuality, or peacemaking, we have to ask the hard question of whether the church has lost the ability to prophetically speak to these areas because of its own less than savory practices and associations. As one example, how is the church supposed to prophetically speak against the hookup culture among young adults when the church itself has adopted superficial approaches to relationship and community? As I've blogged about previously, the question of how cozy or not cozy the church should be with the world around it has been a thorny issue from the beginning. Within the context of a mafia drama, Coppola warns us of the danger of accommodating culture in order to gain earthly relevancy or influence. While few of us are providing comfort to mob bosses, we need to ask who and what we are aiding and comforting, and why. A failure to thoughtfully examine this question and courageously act on what the Spirit shows us will result in the kind of largely impotent religion that Coppola painfully presents.