{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

My por- -- purpose cannot be to give you the whole story of the last thousand years. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that you live in a time { } state which is utterly different from the first thousand years of the Christian Church. It took a thousand years to let antiquity wither away. And the era in which we live takes it so much for granted that there is, for example, a separation between Church and state, that most of you have no relation to the separation of Church and state, and when the Catholic schools star- -- demand that their buses should be paid by go- -- the government, there is hardly much understanding in your generation of the historical issue and its depth and its profundity involved. You may discuss it somehow on pri- -- question of principle, but it is hard for you, I think--for any man who's young, of your age--to see that with this request, there is something opened again, a demand which took 2,000 years to settle.

The first thousand years, we said, is the growth of the Church, and I s- -- ha- -- halted last time with -- emphasizing the fact that one-fourth of the Church must always be underground. I said that the Church went into the desert to emphasize that part of its life had to be incognito. The last of such monastic orders, and such monastic extra-territorial situation, was perhaps in the West the famous republic of monks, on the Greek peninsula of Chalcidice, near Saloniki, where it still exists a little bit. That's the famous mountain of Athos. Who has heard of the mountain of Athos? Well, Professor {Chukas} has written his doctor's dissertation on this -- on these -- republic of monks.

So there were significantly founded in the last -- in the 10th century, in the last century of the period, which I have tried to stress as being the ecclesiastical millennium in which everything interesting that happened belonged to the realm of the Church. 900 -- from 910 to 930, these many monasteries on Athos were founded, and they were so strict still in the desert that to this day a female chicken cannot -- is not allowed in there, you see. It has to be male. The life of the established agricultural order of production, which you worship--your golden calf is production, after all--is still kept out of Athos. The lowest standard of living possible, so that nothing is required there to be cultivated and grown. That's the principle, you see. Get away with water and -- and some nuts for a year. Then you will not have to worry about the calendar of the pharaoh, and of the imperial order.

Mr. {Phillip Miller}, who used to teach here several years ago at Dartmouth, has lived for a year -- for three-quarters of a year as such a monk at Athos. So it's still a reality that you can still follow this strange line of

thought--for us, strange--that there has to be an exodus from Egypt, because otherwise the world is without human reserves who can renew the ways of life. You are all sunk because you think you have to have these things.

I always remember the Dartmouth student who wanted to become a doctor, and finally he gave it up, because he said, "Well -- but I have to take my physical exercise in the shower from 6 to 7 in the morning, and as a doctor, I might not be able to do that." So he couldn't become a doctor. That is your golden calf, what you need from oatmeal in the morning and the egg in the morning, to the steak in the evening, and a Cadillac in between.

The -- forms of this incognito took only the visible, geographical form of a desert existence, gentlemen, after the Church ceased to be underground, in the catacombs. And if you ask: why did monasticism not blossom forth in the days of the Lord Himself?--who after all, as I told you, lived in the desert in His most decisive hour--the answer is because the world did not accept the Christians, and wherever it found Christians, it would execute them. The martyrs of the ancient Church were strong enough and telling enough in order to make it unnecessary to have monks before 200 A.D. 200 A.D. is by and large when the Roman empire began to shake, and to realize that it had to come to terms with the Christians. By 2096, the Christians were in all high offices of the Roman empire, already. And Diocletian, the last persecutor of the Christians, was not tempted to persecute them in his famous, last persecution, because he was an enemy of the Christians, but because the Christians had--like creeping socialism, you see--they had to -- crept anywhere -- everywhere into the high offices. It was like the -- Diocletian is a little bit in the position of the new Republicans, you see, who have to take over the New Deal, but they cannot admit it.

And so the Diocletian persecution -- or the name of "Diocletian" has come to you, if you have heard anything, as the great persecutor of the Christian Church; but in fact he was the man in whose government already practically the Christians became part and parcel of the administration of the empire. And at that time, the monks had to take over the role of the martyrs, because the martyrs, you see, no longer were martyred.

And it is interesting to notice that the final reception of a new order of things, gentlemen, usually comes about, or is mature at the moment of a last violent flare-up, an attempt to -- not to receive it. The -- that's what the election of 1952 has been in this country, you see, a desperate attempt of the Republicans to say that they still lived in 1929, or before the Crash. And now of course, as their budget shows, it is all admitted that the thing has to go on. And you watch therefore a very interesting historical, epoch-making change, how this is brought about, gentlemen. It is always -- there are laws in history. They look a little dif-

ferent from your idea of rational development, or of evolution. It -- it goes, as in any body -- any human body, with an immunity to be acquired, or with a new quality to be acquired, it goes with a high fever. And the persecution of the Christians, under Diocletian, is a little bit like McCarthy in this country here, you see, attempting to turn -- not to -- even to turn the clock back so much as to -- not to admit that the clock already has marched on.

So the reception of Christianity into the Roman empire, gentlemen, was -- had finally become an irresistible process, and for this reason, the martyrs went, more or less, out of existence. I mention this, gentlemen, because you read very often today about the fact that Christianity has to become a catacomb Christianity again. The Catacombs, where the dead of the Christians were buried in the cemeteries, were below Rome, below the buildings of Rome, down in the basement, below the basement. And "catacomb" means just the -- the slumber of the dead, underneath.

And so it's a little dangerous if people today romanticize the catacombs and to say that Christianity will wake up again if it -- as soon as it has martyrs. There is truth in it. But the monastic movement, functionally, has served the same purpose. And therefore I'm inclined to think that the modern form of Christianity will have to look very differently. It will be an abstemiousness from all the modern mass media. If you want to go into the desert today and show real faith, gentlemen, you just ha- -- have to give up -- not drinking, but the dr- -- cold drugs of movies and television. And otherwise you can't be a Christian. You see what the Christians -- movies do to the Church today. They show the Lord's -- Crucifixion in the movies. That's the end of the world, gentlemen. That's really the world. It has totally taken over. Movies and Christianity just don't go together. "Religious movies" is a con- - contradiction in -- in --- in -- in terms.

And you see therefore that today Christianity has lost its -- its punch, because it has -- is absolutely identified with the world. It is just the -- one other activity of the world. As soon as it is an activity of the world, gentlemen, it is no power in the world. And therefore, we are -- this moment it is hardly possible to say that the Ch- -- we are not -- have not merged the world and God. Because God became man in order to testify that man was not of this world, but had to change the world.

I mention this, because -- again I say because the catacombs are a kind of cheap romanticism today. We won't have catacombs, gentlemen. The form of the Christian life has to take in every generation, to represent the divine incognito in a world totally known, has to take new forms in every century, obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't be unknown. And by look -- seeing a picture about the catacombs, you can't make an impression on the future of mankind.

Now how did the change come about? How is it possible that for the last 900 years, we speak with the same vehemence and interest of world history, when in the first thousand years everybody was only interested in Church history? The way the change came about is that which I try to explain to you at this -- today, because if you understand the transfer of interest from the term "Church" to the term "world," you will understand how precise, how rational the history of the Christian era has moved forward. I hope I can explain this to you by a few slogans. In the year in which Jesus was crucified, the Apostles were unknown. Known was the glory of the Roman empire.

I put here the name of Nero Caesar, he was this Number 666, the -- the beast from the abyss of which Revelation speaks so eloquently. And he was worshiped as God. And compared to the caesarism in Rome, and the glory of these Caesars in every province of the Roman empire--where we find not only their statues but we find their decrees -- to this day they are unearthed, their big buildings--compared to this, the Apostles were of course -- well, they must have looked like -- at best like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or at worst, like the Salvation Army. And they were despised. There were some princes already then of the Caesars' family, who -- and their wives who preferred to become Christians, and they were martyrs. Domitius -- Domitian, the emperor, had a -- probably a sister who was among the Christian martyrs. But of course, they were considered insane.

If we come to the year 1000, we suddenly see a total change. Or "suddenly" is wrong. We see the -- what the 900 years have brought about. This pope who christened Constantine on his deathbed in 336, bore the name Sylvester. Sylvester I. And he is in the calendar of -- by the way on December 30th, as the important pope who made this peace -- the peace between the empire and the pope. And I told you the story of the -- christening of Constantine means that even the emperor-god, even the pharaoh, had now to bow to the God-man, to Christ, so that his divinity, you see, was abandoned. The christening of a Roman emperor means that the emperor says that he is a mortal.

This you must understand. Not an individual is christened when an emperor becomes a Christian. Mr. Hirohito wo- -- didn't become a Christian when {Mort Arthur} came there. But since MacArthur was so much taller than Hirohito, and they were photographed together, the defeat of the Japa- -- Japanese emperor meant, by and large, the same as the christening of Constantine, you see. But there was a power higher than the divine majesty of Mr. Shinto, you see, Chief, Hirohito. We have -- you have seen before your eyes how an emperor can be lowered. It was much wiser not to chase him out, but to keep him there in the new relationship, you see, of a human being who has failed, who is mortal, who is fallible. It was an act of great wisdom. I wish they had done similar things

in Europe.

The -- in the year 1000, gentlemen, when the world of the Church expected more or less the end of the world, the year 1000 was expected with some -- with some apprehension, the pope who then governed called himself Sylvester II. And that is the first time in the history of a church that a pope deliberately took a new name upon himself, as they all now do, changed his name around; his -- name had been Gerbert, and he was archbishop of Reims. And he said now that he wanted to renew the great tradition of the Church, and therefore he wished to look like a emperor -- a pope of the first thousand years.

Now ever since, gentlemen, the pope in Rome, when he becomes pope, changes his name. That was not done in the ancient Church. Peter was Peter. And Linus was Linus. And Sylvester was Sylvester. That is, they had the name which they had. And then they became popes.

The Church after 1000, gentlemen, has become a renaissance, a re- -- Church of -- of re-pristination, of renewing the ancient Church. And the popes themselves recognize it. When -- ever since Sylvester II, a pope will take upon himself a new name by which he alludes to something ancient.

The last pope of -- who could himself -- call himself II--because all names are now more or less used up in the tradition of Roman papacy--was a Renaissance pope, in 1458. Perhaps you -- keep this man's name also in mind. His name was Pius II. So in -- in these 500 years, they went to the calendar, to the data of the ancient Church, the popes, and said, "Let us renew the splendor of this church. Let us be seconds." And so you see that leading men in the Church themselves feel -- felt that they would have to go through a renaissance, a regeneration of the Church, a rebirth of the Church herself. Before, the Church had been an original -- ves- -- vessel of regeneration. But now with Sylvester II, the Church felt that itself, the Church, had to be regenerated. That's not the same.

Therefore, gentlemen, the -- visible Church since -- 1000 is not original, but it is as original perhaps as the Renaissance artists, the people who began to imitate Greek tragedy, or Homer. Milton is original, but he's not, because he feels that he should renew the Old Testament tradition. And the same with Michelangelo, or the people who built the classical buildings in the hellen- -- hell- -- Greek style in -- all over Europe. If you go to a capitol building here, with its pillars, that's renaissance, you see; that's regeneration of an old order of things.

Now it is, I think, interesting that this re- -- rebirth prob- -- process, this renaissance process began right around the year 1000 in the person of the pope of that age, who changed his name in order to emphasize that some ancient

glory of the Church should be restored. And we know even which glory, gentlemen. What he wanted to restore is the superiority of the pope over the world.

However, the emperor who put him in office in Rome was a German emperor, Otto III, a Saxon. And this Saxon in the same year, 1000, called himself "His Apostolic Majesty," and spoke in the language of the Apostle Paul. And there you have the strange dilemma of the second century: a world emperor--Otto III--spoke in terms of apostolic mission. He had taken over the apostolic duty, so to speak. And the poor pope, in order to get a little of his splendor, had to compare himself to Sylvester II, the pope who christened the emperor; but practically this Sylvester was nothing but a lackey of the emperor, Otto III. It was the emperor who asked him to become pope. It was the emperor who gave him his power, and who selected him among oth- -- all other candidates. And at -- in the year 1000, gentlemen, the pope -- papacy had reached an all-time low, and the apostolic majesty an all-time high, under the condition that the emperor behaved like an apostle.

Ever since, to the end of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy in 1916, gentlemen, the title of the Holy Roman Emperor has been "His Apostolic Majesty." That came down from this time of the change of -- from the Church history to the history of the world, because the emperors at that time in 1000 were the great pioneers of Church reform, and the popes were not. The popes only yearned for it. But they were, as I said, servants, lackeys, and partly, really horrible men. Profligates.

The his- -- the great Catholic historian of the Roman Ch- -- of the Church, Baronius, who is treated as a saint, by the way, by the Church, has written in his -- in his history of the Church, of this century, of the last century of the first millennium: it seemed that Christ was asleep in His boat, so horrible was the situation of the Church. They had forgotten that they hadn't to be of -- of the world, and they had -- the emperors however were pious people and tried to reform the world, and the monks did. If you asked a man who was a Christian in the year 1000, they would say that the only people who had cha- -- who were converted were the monks. And the name for the monk, gentlemen, in the year 1000 was, interesting enough, the "conversus." Because you could only trust a monk to have become converted to Christianity. The others were only formally Christians. And the clergy, including the pope, were called "mundus," the world, the worldly clergy, the secular clergy. And the monks then and the emperor were at that moment the only saviors.

And you have read this -- when you read this chapter on All Souls, you may now -- it may come back to you that this is what I state, in this chapter, that All Souls had to be founded, you see, by the monks of Cluny, under the protec-

tion of the emperor, in order to bring back the yearning that man could not be identified with the world around him.

Then the storm broke loose. When even the papacy -- the first see of Christianity seemed to be submerged into the world, the popes, under the leadership of the -- a monk, as a pope--Gregory VII, he was a monk, a very austere monk--said, "We have to regenerate this Church." Gregory VII tried to take over from the pious emperors of the Roman empire--of German blood--the flag, the banner of restoration, of reform.

And the next event which we have to state here is the -- great battle of the Pope Gregory, from 1074 to 1122, trying to take away from the kings of this earth the appointment of the clergy. That's the so-called struggle of investiture, which I have to mention here, because it had dimensions like the Russian Revolution today, or the French Revolution 150 years ago. It's exactly the same upheaval of all the recognized order, just as the Russians say that the managers of the factories cannot be put -- appointed by private owners; but have to be appointed by the government--in the same way the pope said, "Bishops and presbyters cannot be appointed by kings, or counts, or dukes. They have to be appointed by clergymen." That is the great struggle. It is the same problem, you see: who -- who appoints? Who -- he who appoints {is} that order. It is not important who is pope. It is important who appoints the pope. He who appoints the pope is more than the pope.

Now in the whole 11th century -- 10th century, practically, the emperor of the Roman empire--now handled by the Germans--had appointed the popes, and--under some ceremonial hokum--but that was practically the story. And Gregory VII became pope with the war cry: no interference with the papacy by any secular power. And since, of course the papacy had to be the first bishop of Christianity, he claimed further that no other bishop should be appointed by the kings.

The outcome of this great struggle, gentlemen, in 1122, with the first socalled concordat--from which you get all these towns of "Concord" in -- in New Hampshire, and other places; comes all down from this new word, "concordat," coined for the first time in 1122; didn't exist before, this word--was an attempt at least to give the pope the emancipation from the appointment by a secular power. But otherwise, gentlemen, the struggle of Gregory VII remained largely unfulfilled, just as the decimal system of the French Revolution has not even today conquered America. And you still have your funny yards, and cubits, and miles, and have not acquiesced in the decimal system, although it's the only reasonable system, the Frenchmen will tell you, in the world. In the same sense, gentlemen, to -- down to today, the bishops in Christendom are not appointed in

freedom. There is still, for example, in Spain, much appointment by the -- Mr. Franco. He appoints the bishop, largely. And that is the great problem at this moment in Spain, by the way. And in Europe, gentlemen, the, for example, the archbishop of Hungary, the primate, was simply a royal official. And when the pope was elected in 1903--I think it was 1903, when Leo XIII had died, the pope was elected from -- by the cardinals; it was -- his name was Rampolla, the famous Cardinal Rampolla--up rose the cardinal of Esztergom, the city in Hungary in which the primate of Hungary resides, not far from Budapest, and told the astonished cardinals that he had a mandate from "His Apostolic Majesty," Emperor Francis Josef of Austria-Hungary, forbidding, vetoing the election of the pope. And as a consequence, Rampolla was not elected. They obeyed the veto of the emperor.

You don't know this, and nobody tells you this, and that's why I tell it to you, that the story of the separation of Church and state is a very complicated one. It isn't so simple, gentlemen. Just as there never will be total Communism, gentlemen, there has never been total Gregorianism in the -- in the Church -- life of the Catholics of this world. You read the story as though at one time in the Middle Ages, everybody was Catholic. Don't believe it for a minute. The people were as little Catholic as they are today. The claim today of the Church is the same. But the claim has never been carried out. If you think that in 1903 the Apostolic Majesty of the year 1000 was still strong enough to veto a pope, you can easily see that in -- all in between, nine-tenths of the bishops in Europe were appointed by the kings, and the -- the potentates.

In France, gentlemen, in -- in Republic of France, the bishops are not appointed without the permit of the government. To this day. Pope can't do it alone. Too important.

So -- the Americans have a very strange picture of the history of the Catholic Church in the last 900 years, as though at one time the Church had been omnipotent -- it had to pay no attention to the state. It has been a militant Church, that is, a church who has claimed ever since Gregory VII that this should be so. But it has never been so. That's a -- makes quite a difference. It has always been a fight. And the powers that be have always claimed that it is impossible to allow the pope to -- or to allow the Church to be an -- autonomous body without any regard to the feelings, or the judgments of the secular powers.

This is very important--I have to say this, gentlemen--because the -- the famous treatment of Mindzenty, and what's this terrible man in Yugoslavia, Step- -- what's the name? Wie?

({ }.)

Ja. What is it? {Steppinac} -- wie? Is it {Steppinac}?--is to -- for you quite un-understandable. It's completely distorted in this country. These are people who represented secular power. And Mr. Mindzenty was the magnet, the primate of Hungary in this intimate connection with the government, you see. If you can veto the election of the pop- -- -acy because of your -- standing with the secular government, you see, of Hungary, you see that it isn't so simple to treat Mr. Mindzenty as a pious Christian who hasn't done anything in politics. That's -- absolutely untrue. It's a very complicated matter.

I have a friend whose -- whose mother was forced by Mr. Step- -- {Steppinac} to choose between exile or going over from the Greek Catholic Church to the Roman Catholic Church. She declined to become a Roman Catholic, so she had to flee for several hundred miles.

So you see the -- the -- Mr.--this -- this patri- -- what is his name? Archbishop of what? I think in -- a school has even been named in his honor in -- in New York--used the very secular means of forced baptism on an old lady, an old woman when he was put in power by the Nazis. Oh, you can't expect Mr. -- this new rascal whom we have, Mr. Tito, to be very agreeable to a man who has, when the wind -- blow -- political wind was blowing favorably, try to convert people by military force. That's never mentioned here.

And that is the real story, gentlemen, of the Church in the last thousand years, that she has claimed complete emancipation from the world. But in Europe, she has not achieved it. There has been a very intricate give and take. And to this day, it isn't settled. To this day, as you know, you can't be a Protestant in Spain. That's why I don't want to travel in Spain. I feel ashamed that I, an American, am allowed in as a heretic, but the poor Spaniards cannot pray as Protestants in Spain. So I'd better not go there. That shows that the separation of state and Church -- just doesn't exist in Spain. And therefore, the Church claims there rights, which you and I, I think, in this country just wouldn't grant a church.

Of course, Mr. Eisenhower has now granted to Ibn Saud of Arabia, because he's a Muslim. No Jew can -- as you know, no Jewish citizen of the United States can go to Saudi Arabia. That's -- is -- shows you how intricate these things are. We have surrendered the separation of state and Church at this moment to this bloody tyrant and slave-holder there.

So all the time, gentlemen, the boundaries between state and Church are not set. You take it for granted, and that's why they don't -- why no Church exists in this country of any moral fiber or power. You speak always of the separation of state and Church, gentlemen, but you just have state. You have no Church. The Church is here just a non-entity. and this is ridiculous to say that we

have a separation of state and -- and Church, if you grow up in a totally secular society, and these religious movies are just an expression of this secularism. And many other things.

So don't be betrayed by words. Look into the matter with your own -- under your own steam and with your own eyes. And you will find that the fight between the Church and the world either is fought in your own heart, or it cannot be fought at all. It is not a principle which one time can be laid down on paper, and then there it is. That's all nonsense. Either you yourself, gentlemen, represent in your own family the emperor and the pope, and divide up your own realm between them--that is, you are alive to this line with -- inside yourself between Church and state. Or there is no living such line. In most of you, there is no such dividedness. And -- if you are not divided, then Church and state cannot be divided. Because Church and state are not divided in a visible way--here is a cardinal, and there is a president, gentlemen--they are only meaningful as claims of God and the world on you. We all are Church and state. Nobody can say he's either state or Church. It's a very subtle line, how much to give to God, and how much to Caesar. But you have to give it. That's the problem.

Now the world in the -- since Gregory VII, gentlemen, came to the fore as the reforming agency, it was the worldly clergy, the papacy who outran the monasteries, the monks for the first time then and there, and said, "We will now organize a worldwide Church." The simple way in which Gregory VII did this was, that he, for the first time proclaimed that any layman could appeal to Rome in matters of marriage. You can--if you have a divorce problem, today, or a nullification problem of your marriage--you can appeal to Rome. No layman could do this, before Gregory VII.

That is, the Church of Rome became for the first time then a worldwide institution, outranking all the other bishops in legal practice. You can appeal to Rome today, which means that the Church of Rome had ceased to be not of this world, because it mingles now and meddles with the affairs of other bishops, which it never could before.

So the world history is ushered in, gentlemen, by the Church feeling that since the emperors had intruded so deeply, as Apostolic Majesties into the Church, the Church had to take over a part of the worldly organization. We can say, gentlemen, that from 1000 -- 1074 to the end of the Middle Ages, the Church becomes organized.

Now organizing, gentlemen, is not religious. Organization is something purely secular. You have a typewriter, gentlemen, that is not a religious institution. The first statistics of the -- Christianity was made in 1192 in Rome. Up to

that time, every bishopric, even in Iceland, was all to its -- a rule to itself. The Christians there were unknown to Rome, largely. Only in 1192, gentlemen, did the Roman Church begin to conduct statistics. Statistics is a secular thing, and it is -- goes together with this miraculous fact, gentlemen, that that institution which has introduced secular methods of government in the we- -- western world for the first time, of efficient organizing the world, was the Christian Church itself, in defense of the intrusion of the emperor on the apostolic tradition, on the liturgy, on the prayers, you see, on the Creed, and on everything sacred in the Inner Sanctum. The church has taken upon itself at that time the socalled temporal power.

And you may know that to this day, the pope claims that he cannot be the head of the inner church, of the religious body of the Church, unless he has some temporal power. The city of the Vatican is the final outcome of this claim, you see, that some amount of secular power has to belong to the pope, or to the Church, or to the bishops, or to the priests, or they cannot cope with the world. It's a complete reversal: the Church in the first thousand years withdrawing from the world and starting a comeback in 1074 and say, "We have been so weakened, we have been so absorbed, the emperor appoints the popes, the emperor -- king of Eng- -- of England appoints Thomas … Becket the archbishop of Canterbury," and so- -- et cetera, "therefore we must do something about it."

Who has read Murder in the Cathedral? Well, it's exactly the same issue. All you can see, Thomas … Becket never got over the fact that the King Henry after all had a point, you see? There's no question that he made him archbishop. Then he claimed independence. But that's a very, you see, difficult proposition. First you have the king making you the archbishop, and then you say that you are independent. You can see that this is as difficult as -- for -- no, I won't give present-day examples. They are a little unpleasant.

But you may recall that a leading man heard hi- -- the man who had appointed him, called "traitor," and he remained silent. And it wasn't thought very -- very cricket.

The first power in the western world, gentlemen, that has started a political revolution has been the papacy. And this struggle is called the struggle of investiture. And it upset everything that had been done for the previous 4- or 500 years in the Church. And when Gregory VII was asked how he could do such a thing, he said, "What? You say that this has lasted for several hundred years, and it was revolutionary that I did this? I'll tell you, the devil lasted in the world of antiquity for 5,000 years until Christ came. So -- and then Christ changed it. So if something so old can be changed, then obviously the abuses of the empire -- emperors and kings can be changed, too."

That's the great slogan of revolution, gentlemen, which the popes used first. There is no power at this moment, gentlemen, in the western world whose authority is not based on revolution, including the papacy. A revolution that is a challenge of the existing principles of law, and the establishment of a new authority, of a new principle. The temporal power of the popes, gentlemen, was a new claim. As you know, it has been fought through with forgeries of all kinds. The -- the Sylvester II people invented a -- a document allegedly given to Constantine -- by Constantine to Sylvester I. And this whole renaissance fiction, therefore, has played a great part in this legalizing the revolution of the papacy. And today, as in the use of the word "sacrament," the extreme novelty of the papal claims for temporal power of the 11th century are simply hushed up, and are denied.

The Greek Church, as you know, in the East, has never admitted the new claims of Gregory VII and his successors. The Roman Church calls these Greeks "schismatic." But the gist of the matter is that the Greek Church is still, you may say, persevering in the forms of life of the first thousand years of the Church. The Chris- -- the Eastern Churches--Bulgarian, Greek, Russian, Pol- -- Abyssinian, Coptic--have never taken the step which the Roman pope took for all the churches of western Christendom to organize against the temporal powers, to protect the bishops by the pope.

If you want to have a form -- formula for the papal revolution, gentlemen, of the Middle Ages, the simplest is: the pap- -- pope takes over the protection of the bishops. The po- -- bishops in their various kingdoms, in their various nations today are protected by the pope. He -- the pope makes sure that the government cannot, you see, simply do anything with these bishops, demand anything of these bishops. And the -- that's the meaning of the concordat. A concordat, as you know, is today the treaty concluded between the pope and the kings of this earth--the authorities of this earth--to protect the Church within that state against the intrusion of the secular power. That's a concordat. It's very important. The first -- the first form of treaties for -- international law of the new millennium.

Behind all public law today, gentlemen, stands this great precedent of a concordat in 1122 concluded between the emperor and the pope in which the pope claimed that the bishops of all Christendom had to be protected by his signature -- the emperor's signature, you see, as -- so that the king an- -- or emperor, or whoever it was, could not proceed against the bishops in his own country, by just sending the police to arrest him, for example, or by appointing them without a certain list of candidates, or certain procedure of elections, or certain barriers against these arbitrary powers.

Again and again, gentlemen, these barriers have been violated. As you know, Louis -VI -- XIV could appoint any scoundrel and make him a cardinal. And all the -- secretaries of state in France in the 18th century were cardinals. Of course, they weren't cardinals in any religious sense of the word, you see, but he could demand that his minister of state could enjoy the rank and the immunities. And so the pope in Rome simply got a letter: "My Dear Sanctity, I have just appointed the Abb‚ {Hubot} -- a minister of state," you see. "Will you kindly bestow the red beret on him?" And it was done.

So again, I want you to know that the Catholic powers in Europe have never -- never quite surrendered their domination over the bishops or the -- and -- the Church in their respective countries. That's why the Republic of France today is secular, because the abuses of the Church in France were all so in- -- incredible. It was a royal institution. Monsieur Talleyrand, the greatest scoundrel ever lived--you have -- may have heard of his name, it was bishop Au- -- of Autun, made by the king of France. And well, Mr. {Lanza} is certainly a sweet odor compared to Mr. Talleyrand's financial operations and obscenities, gambling, et cetera. He was the foremost gambler of France, Talleyrand.

And to give you an example of his -- of his character: in 1831, he took -- again an oath on one of the many constitutions of France and the king Louis Philippe was standing at the altar, lifting his hand to give the oath on this new constitution. And Talleyrand was going to take it, too, and he hissed over to the king, "The eleventh." It was the eleventh oath on a new constitution which he took in his lifetime. He had broken every one of { }.

But he was bishop. He was bishop of Autun at the ripe age, I think, of 24. He married, of course, just the same. And he died with the last unction of the Catholic Church just the same, for all his perjuries. It didn't matter. And when it came to dying, he said to the doctor, "Are you sure that I'm now finally going to die?" He was 87.

And the doctor said, "Yes."

"Well, then I," he said, "I will -- going make peace with the Church."

Let's have a break, ja.

[tape interruption]

...question that now arises. The Church has put this question herself first, when he speaks of the temporal power of the pope. When the pope governed the center part of Italy as a prince, he had there temporal power. He was just noth-

ing but another administrator -- governor, a king, or a duke. And therefore the pope has been the first to make this division between a -- a lasting part of reality which should be called "the world," and another part which is not of this world. Today, our modern humanitarians have tried to christen the world totally, and say, "The world -- either the whole world is Christian, or nothing is Christian." And your own defeat comes from this fact that you think it is impossible to distinguish between the temporal and the eternal.

And the word "world" today is either -- sometimes used in the sense of temporal, or in the sense of spatial. You can speak of the world for its wideness, for its expanse. And you can say that the world explorers are people like Admiral Byrd who goes to the Antarctic. But you can also speak -- today of the world in the -- terms of the temporal tal- -- still, because for example the term "world revolution" as used by the Marxians, is clearly a -- meaning the temporal, the timely development of human society, in the sense of temporal development, and has little to do with space. It doesn't mean the geographical universe.

And -- so to -- ever since Gregory VII, there has been this ambiguity. What is the world? And -- or what is temporal? And what is everlasting? What is eternal? We sing it, "Lead on, O God Eternal," very light-heartedly, as though we knew. And we speak of the division and separation of Church and state, and say the Ch- -- state is secular. But I think I challenge most of you. You have no clear conception what is secular and what is worldly, and what is not. What is Caesar's and what is God's?

To -- explain to you how intricate this question is, I have put the question before this class five years ago, under the government of Mr. McCarthy. And I said, "You have a guest in your house. And it knocks at the door, at midnight. And this guest trusts you. You are his host. And the FBI is at the door, and wants you to extradite this man. What are you going to do?"

"Oh," they were very upset. And they said, "Of course, hand him over to the FBI. What else can we do?"

So I said, "Now wait a minute. Hospitality is the oldest religion of mankind. If you do not protect your guest, you are just shit. I despise you, and I will have no truck with you. If this is your only answer, I cannot teach you anymore. You have ceased in my eyes to have any religion. You may go to church on Sundays, but that doesn't mean anything. You are just scoundrels."

Oh, they were -- were shocked--not about themselves, but about me. And -- and I asked them to c- -- reconsider and to come back after a committee of the house with a -- with a real clarification. I had -- thought I had explained to them

how important their decision was. Of course, you would -- I know you do exactly as they. Nobody today thinks in his little apartment that he can protect a guest.

But they came back with a very solomonic decision. They said, "If the sheriff comes and wants to arrest the man, we'll conceal him. If the FBI comes, we'll hand him over."

Now I said to them, "The religious decision would be the opposite. The sheriff doesn't come for a political enemy. He comes for theft. He comes for a murder. He comes for just a common felony and crime. Therefore I have no reason to protect my guest against his being a simple criminal. But the FBI comes for political reasons. And there his -- own -- my -- guest is free. And therefore I reverse your decision. And I have to defend a man against the FBI, but not against the sheriff."

But in order to let you see your own dilemma, gentlemen, I then went on to say, you have in your heart two Americanisms. The one of the 18th century with the sheriff. And there you are all for the underdog, and for the accused. And he is -- he is not guilty as long as proven, et cetera. That's the sheriff. That's your old system of which you have heard something about Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, and such nice people. But today you live in a 20th century, and for you the reality is the FBI, and the new communistic organization of the United States. And in this new communism, you simply obey orders. And therefore you are a 20th-century American, three-quarters of yourself, and with onequarter, you have a sentimental hankering for the sheriff of the 18th century, and your right to be a rebel against the sheriff.

And I think that's in every one of you, gentlemen. You have faint reminiscences of an 18th-century America. But in -- in force inside yourself is 20th-century America. And that's the opposite. And that has eliminated the first law of the tribe, hospitality. And -- if you wish to know what religion is, gentlemen, then you cannot go to the organized churches, but you -- look into your own heart.

If you have somebody who is entrusted to you against all the established authority of Church and state, then this is your religion. And I hope you have. I hope you have a sweetheart, or you have a mother, or you have a sister, or you have somebody -- or your friend whom you will defend against all the powers that be, because otherwise you do not know what religion is. That's the only case in which you will find out what it means to have -- to trust -- God more than men.

And this whole sentence of Jesus, that you have to give to Caesar what is

Caesar's and to God what is God's, you can't even apply it in your own life, because you are such a naked individual, that even within your apartment, you give way to the FBI. As soon as that is possible, that the FBI can arrest your child, can arrest your wife without you even lifting a finger to protect them, you have no religion, gentlemen. Because a man is not alone who has religion. Religion ties you to something -- to somebody, doesn't it? Religion ties you to the power that orders the universe, or promises to order it tomorrow. And you must prepare His order by your own steps.

So there must be some sovereignty within your own life in which you receive the divine orders, and defy all the powers that be on this earth. And that is -- is a far way, today to your heart, gentlemen. Most of you are faithless, because you -- I cannot find any point where you will say "No" to some organized force. And there you see the difference, gentlemen, between the -- eternal and the world. The world is that which is organized. That's the world. And that which can be organized. If hospitality can be organized by guided tours of Mr. Cook through Europe, or by the Experiment in Living, or whatever these organizations now are, or by the -- bus mass movement across the continent, then that's not friendship. That's the imitation of friendship. That's travel agencies, for example. That's worldly. That's secular. All -- everything that is totally organizable, gentlemen, is of this world. Why? Because that which is organized is repetitive. And God is unrepeatable. We -- talked about this, that Jesus was incalculable. And the condition of the God-man is that He remains incalculable. Everything that is calculable is also organizable. You can organize anything that has a precedent. You cannot organize your own real life because it has no precedent.

So the -- the battle, gentlemen--what is organizable in your own existence, and what is not--is the question of every century's religion. And exactly that much is God's that -- where men decline to organize. Where people say, "It can be organized," they have declared it a -- a topic of worldly action.

Now the borders -- boundaries of what is -- can be organized have been moved forward in the last thousand years to a tremendous degree. I think the world today, as we know it, is more organizable obviously than it was in 1192 when the pope began to run statistics about the bishops, you see, for the first time. The world was unknown, unorganizable. And especially, gentlemen, the world was full of spirits, full of ancient witchcraft, of elves, of gremlins, et cetera. People believed in fairies. The most pious Christians believed in incubi and succubi. That is, evil spirits who would -- who would make their womenfolk pregnant. Or people who could bewitch a cow and make the harvest -- spoil the harvest.

Wherever you find, gentlemen, a belief in spirits, you find that the world

is not yet totally the world, because it is shot through with either diabolical or divine influences. There is no clear-cut division between the world and God, wherever you have a belief in fairies, or in demons, or in evil spirits, or in -- such things. As you well know, you leave -- live in a world which -- with regard to its metals, its minerals, its -- its processes, electricity and so, is organized. You only have to think of the airwaves. That's incredible that we have even organized and distributed the airwaves, you see, among these various tele- -- telecasts and companies.

The history of the last 900 years, gentlemen, is strewn, is filled with steps to declare more parts of the universe to be mere world, to be organizable. The Russian -- world revolution, gentlemen, is the last, distinctive event. In -- the Russians declare practically everything, including men, to be organizable. And the Americans do, too. America and Russia are in the avant-garde of the world revolution. and poor Europe is holding out. Mr. Priestley, the author -- the man who wrote the -- So Green Is My Valley, had a very nice article the other day in the -- British -- in a British magazine where he said, "I'm asked to decide between the western and the eastern power, the -- Russia and the United States. But for my life, I canno- -- cannot discover any distinction -- any difference between the two. I am defending my green valley as something incomparable, as something unique, as something idyllic, you see. My home, my own -- my country. Both the Americans and the Russians tell me that it must be organized. And that's the end of my own existence. And I cannot see that one way is better than the other."

So for this good man, the -- who has seen this, "So Green Is My Valley"? Oh, that's already obsolete? It goes so fast. A very beautiful movie. You haven't seen it?

The -- to the -- him, this world revolution, gentlemen, has absolutely nothing to do with so-called Communism. It is simply the fact that any valley can be organized, that any valley can be determined by a higher authority now to serve some technical purpose. And he says, "No, it cannot," in his eyes. That's not the world; that's his home.

I don't want to decide this, gentlemen, but I want to point out that you bandy -- bandy around the term "world" without any religious connotation. It is a terrific step to declare a new element of your own life to be worldly. Mr. Freud declared a whole province of your soul to be mere world. That's psychoanalysis, and that is a revolution. I -- I don't share this conviction. I think that this is still your secret. If you declare -- if you have one secret less, gentlemen, you are less human. And it isn't that I'm interested in the doctrines of psychoanalysis one way or the other, but I'm interested in the secrecy of my being, because I have tried to tell you that without secrets, man has no growth. Without incognito,

there is no future. And I think the people who are analyzed have no future, because they are somebody else's secret. And no longer their own.

Publicity, gentlemen, is always with -- going with the world. If a man can be publicized, he can be commercialized, and if he can be commercialized, he's purely worldly. He's no longer interesting to God. He's only interesting to Madison Avenue. The revolutions, gentlemen, from the pope on, I've put down here in so many years. In my book, Out of Revolution, I have tried to tell the story in the terms of these revolutionaries themselves. Every party of revolution, beginning with Pope Gregory VII, has declared that one part of the world was in such bad state that it now had to be worldwidely, internationally organized. The pope organized the protection of the bishops of the Church in every part of the world. He said, "I'm a world power from now on. There can be no bishop in any part of the universe whom I, the pope, do not protect." You see, that was -- that's the new thing. And I assure you, in the days of Gregory VII, I would have been one of his partisans, because he defended the freedom of the Church against the encroachment of the secular powers in their various countries. The case of freedom and of revolution was at that time with the Roman Church.

But I would also say that in the Reformation, when the princes made the revolution, not the pope, they felt that the freedom of conscience was on their side. As you know, the princes of the Reformation--Henry VIII is a poor example, because he -- he only imitated the actions of the princes of Martin Luther's -- nation, the German nation, and the Polish nation, the Hungarian--what did these princes then claim? They did exactly as Gregory VII. They said that the temporal power of the pope needed money, and that for money, for the temporal power of the pope, the Church of Rome would indulge -- would sell indulgences. Would -- hurt the conscious -- consciences of the subjects of these princes. And the princes simply said--exactly as Gregory VII, 250 -- 300 years earlier -- 400 years earlier--they said simply, "In an emergency, a man who has any authority, like we, the secular princes, is called forward to take a religious -- from a religious conviction a new step in the order of things. We have to protect our subjects against the exploitation by the court in Rome." That's all it is, I mean. The whole content of the Reformation is that you cannot assess the Christian faith of the subject of a prince by letters from Rome.

As you know, the whole struggle broke out over this right of the pope to sell letters of indulgence and send his own delegates around to collect money for the building of St. Peter in Rome. And it is an unsavory connection between the salvation of a human soul and the building of a visible building, even if it is a church.

I think every Roman Catholic agrees today, there is no -- difference today

between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the judgment over the Reformation. The best book on the Reformation is written by a German Roman Catholic, Mr. {Lodz}, and could be introduced into any Protestant seminar today. Because after 400 years of dissent there has been reached total agreement that the religious people were the reformers in 1500, just as the religious people were the popes in the 11th -- in the -- 11th century. And both made revolution as an emergence, because a part of the religious institutions of the -- had gone worldly. And so the world had to be reorganized.

The result being that you get the so-called "established churches." An established Church, gentlemen, is always a Church of the Reformation, because it means that a prince in an emergency has taken it upon himself to reorganize the religious life of his subjects. And that's what you have in the established Church -- in the Anglican Church, for example, in England to this day. It's called the established Church as having been wrested from the corruption of the temporal power of the pope. It's a very simple formula which I advise you to use, because it makes clear that the Reformation had no religious issue, gentlemen. It had an issue: how far had the revolution -- of the papacy of the 12th century gone too far? How far had the temporal power of the popes--you see, not their religious position--carried them too far? Protestants also believe in the divinity of Christ; they believe in the Trinity; they believe in the Apostles, they believe in the Bible. There is no -- not the difference. The only difference is, you see, they do not believe in the laws of the papacy, which have been issued from the pope in Rome after 1074.

The real struggle of the -- of the political powers of the second thousand years, gentlemen, is between the things that have happened in the last thousand years. Nobody today debates the great ecclesiastical achievements of the first thousand years of the Church. That's not in -- in a -- in the struggle. It would be much simpler, gentlemen, to cope with all these ecumenic problems of the Church if finally the people would come around and -- and see what the real issue is.

The issue is: the temporal power of the papacy, the temporal power of the princes--in England, it went on; you get Cromwell, and the next revolution--was based on the rights of the nobility to throw out the divine right of kings, the right to reform the Church, to establish a Church. The nonconformists of England, of which the Americans are an offshoot, are -- were all done by independents who left the Church of England, you see, and said, "The Church of England is corrupt. The king has used his bishopric -- right over the Church for abuses. So the nobility, the gentry, the gentlemen of England have to run -- the affairs of religion."

So the Mayflower Covenant is a typical gentry covenant, you see--Governor Winthrop, and Berkeley, and so--they were gentlemen who said that the king of England had no right to establish a Church, and that the gentry had a right to establish a Church. But they never thought that the indentured servants had a right to establish a church, these gentlemen, you know -- or the children had. These had to be -- wait for another revolution. Gentry of England made in the 17th century the revolution that has led to the establishment of this country.

The French Revolution you all know by name, and you may also know that it introduced the notion that the secular mind, the -- the writer, the poet, the artist, the Picassos or the -- the Voltaires could write the ticket of civilization. It was the first time that instead of clergymen, the secular -- people, the intellectuals, the intelligentsia claimed the right to run the show. So the French Revolution was based on the assumption, gentlemen, that in an emergency--not the pope, not the prince, not the gentry, but genius--the Greek genius, the free spirit, free thinker could say what should be done.

And the French Revolution then, gentlemen, is based on secular inspiration, as a substitute for religious inspiration. And you all hail from this pedigree. You all officially at least are un- -- still under the spell of the French Revolution. If you go to the Pan- -- who has been in Paris? Have you seen the Panth‚on? Wie? The Panth‚on, as you know, is the tomb -- churchyard of the geniuses of France, the intellectuals. It's -- there is a great monument to -- Aux crivains de France, to the writers of France. And the word "‚crivain," the word "writer" in -- in -- in France has by and large the same sonority as when you speak of Mr. Rockefeller. It's the gold of France, genius. Not the gold of Fort Knox.

You have a very hard time. That's why France has had such a prominent role in America, gentlemen--because since the French Revolution, you have borrowed the glories of the intellect of France, so to speak, as a supplement, because here it had no such glory. The -- here -- no -- no -- never has a writer achieved any prominence in this country. He can't. He's hated. And he's looked at as ridiculous, and he is sent to such a lunatic asylum.

The last revolution, gentlemen, is the world revolution. And the great question of -- for you to decide is: is it a Russian revolution or a world revolution? I am convinced, gentlemen, that the last form in which the world has become organized is not Communism, and that the Russians have just stolen the thunder. If you want to conquer the Russian Revolution, gentlemen, don't become anti-Communists. That's ridiculous. But act as the Committee on Power did in 1936 in this country, headed by {Paul Hoffman} of Chrysler. In 1936, the businessmen of this country who had some brains got together and said, "There are obviously certain worldly elements and powers--like electricity, or uranium,

or such things--that have to be organized on a worldwide scale." Oil is one of them. "We can't go on any longer for these forces and elements with private capitalism. We have to see that these things are so rare, and so functional, and so located in only a few places of the globe," that this Committee on Power said, "Let's drop all these distinctions between capitalism, and Communism, and Socialism. They are just scholastic, ridiculous pedantries. The practical question is: there are certain things which have to be organized on a worldwide scale, like atomic energy. And there are others, like ties and shirts which can be produced individually. Let us have as many different ties, including even the Truman tie, as we want. That's nothing here nor there. That's for -- for private business. And that's individual enterprise. But for Heaven's sake, don't tell me that oil in Arabia is private enterprise. Because it leads to the next war. That's ridiculous. It's a laugh."

Ten years ago, the president of Socony Vacuum went to the state department and said, "We are buying this oil from Ibn Saud in Arabia. We feel that's a very dangerous proposition. We pay him $300 million a year. Shan't we make any conditions so that he cannot use these -- this money for armaments -- for our enemies?"

And the state department was still in the 19th century, and hadn't seen that the world had...

[tape interruption]

...we might have -- we have had an explosion of bad will against America all over the world, gentlemen, because power today is functional with regard to the whole of the globe. It's a global problem. The world revolution in my estimation, which the pope started in 1074 with regard to the bishops all over the globe now has reached the minerals all over the globe. Oil needs protection. Uranium needs protection. And many other things. Think of the satellites. Think of the stratosphere. Think of the airlines, and all these problems. And therefore, gentlemen, what the pope demanded for a few religious souls in every country, we have to demand for the treasures underneath the surface of the globe.

And this is the one story of world history, gentlemen, of the last thousand years, that more and more parts of the globe have demanded to be dealt with, wholesale. In a total organization. The first part of the world that had to be treated as one was the Church. The second was the princes, the states. The last today are the raw materials. And it is one great process of seeing that the whole world is the Lord's. And therefore, no partial power on this globe can -- can claim sovereign power over the treasures of the world.

Think of your own private land. Who owns a piece of land in his family? Who -- who does? Well, there must be more whose father have a house. All right now, gentlemen. In the last 50 years, your father has been expropriated without any law. Because 50 years ago, the airspace over his house was his, and today it isn't. Because everybody knows simply that airplanes have to fly across this house, airspace, although they may -- are very noisy, as you know. That's the strange thing that no law has been passed to this effect.

When I was a student of law, gentlemen--that's now in 1907--one of the exercises in the seminar in which we try to learn the law, was about the airspace above the -- a man's house. And since flying hadn't been invented at that time--I mean, aircraft, heavier than air--and we all decided unanimously that a man has a right to the airspace above his house. If you go to Harvard Law School, or any one of these -- of these centers of production of injustice, the -- the answer is "Of course, no question." The question is only how many yards must this rascal keep above your children? Isn't that the whole question? But he can stink. He can make noise. He can do anything.

Well, gentlemen, that's how new law is created, when the world gets more organized. It's simply -- it isn't even mentioned that you ever had a right. You see. There's no new law, which I think is very significant, you see, because the world is that part, obviously of our her- -- inheritance, gentlemen, that shall be organized. The question is only: what is worldly?

Now we have reached the point where -- to know what the world is in the eyes of history, gentlemen. The last thousand years have said: "worldly" is that which must be organized by reason, which can be predicted, and which the more we understand it, must be organized on a global basis. The word "world," of course, lends itself to some misunderstanding. World is a projection. You may speak of the whole world, and mean all the fixed stars. At this moment, we are satisfied to say that a world revolution must organize uranium, and oil, because it's still on our planet. But a hundred years ago, we may have to organize the world, including the -- the seven other planets, you see. We don't know. Therefore the world -- word -- the term "world," is -- is expansive. It can be -- it can be expanded.

And the very wor- -- term "world," gentlemen, then had a narrower meaning in 1074. At that time it was the known world. Today it is the world known and unknown, as far as this globe is concerned. I think Mr. {Hoffman's} Committee on Power would say, "If there are oil and uranium treasures in the Sahara Desert, our planning must include them, although we do not yet know where they are." You see what I mean?

So the history of the last 1900 years is the history of organizing the world as known, and coming to know the world in as far as yet unknown. And so it is divided into two chapters, or two halves: the -- the discovery of the world, what is still unknown, you see; and the organizing of the world, in as far as known.

And I challenge you once more: you have to decide whether you are witnessing a world revolution or a Russian revolution. And I am deeply interested in seeing more and more people's understanding that the world wars were the revolution, because in the world wars, the world had to get organized. When you go to war with China, as an ally, and Japan--as the United States you will recall did, already in 1917--then you have to organize this world. And we did. And on it goes. In the Second World War even more of the world was organized.

So my thesis is--and I'm very serious, gentlemen--that the world revolution of the last 14 years--here I have put on the dates--consists not in the ideology of some human revolutionaries in which I'm not interested, and which I think have all been refuted by the facts. Karl Marx has not made any revolution. He has predicted one, and he called it the Great World War, and he has been right. Karl Marx has never predicted the Russian Revolution, and the Russians have absolutely no right to rely on Marx. But you and I, gentlemen--as victims, or as -- products of the two world wars--we can claim that Marx predicted the downfall of nationalism, and the end of a national economy. And that he said there had to be a worldwide economy. And what is Mr. Eisenhower trying to do? To convince the isolationists in America that we do have to live in a worldwide economy. That's what he tries to do with his budget, with his foreign aid program, and what-not.

It's an American pro- -- pro- -- problem; it's a European problem, the world revolution. It's not a Russian problem. The Russians are the most provincial of all the peoples in the world, even to this day. They have a little industry. And they have a little -- worldwide economy, but much less than we have. We have revolutionized the whole globe much more, and we are still having -- will -- we still have to do much more organization. It is to the American interest, gentlemen, as fast as possible to claim that the world has been thrown into a world revolution, as prophesied by Karl Marx in 1865 or in 1847, through the two world wars, that no ideology can change anything of the economic circumstance and { }. The Gospel of Marx said, "Ideas don't do anything. The facts speak for themselves." Ha- -- hasn't he said that?

How can you believe that Communists who call themselves Marxians can have any influence on the facts of life? But you and I, whose fathers, uncles, and so on--I have myself -- have been in the First World War already, against their will--whose families have been uprooted, destroyed, immigrated, come to this

country, or gone elsewhere, been killed, murdered--shouldn't we say that something has happened that forces us now to face the fact that the world has to be organized? Isn't that -- the simple law of life today, after 40 years of such upheavals?

I cannot understand, for example, how a man of any of the great religions in this country--Christian, or Jewish or otherwise--can fail to see that the survival of his own -- highest spiritual values demand today a global assertion of order. How can a Jew say that after 6 million Jews have been slaughtered in Europe, that they can leave simply as an American Jew? It's impossible. He has to do something for world organization of power. Otherwise he can't live in peace. He can't.

And so on it goes. I would be -- able to prove this to you of every branch of civilized life today, that if these people were only honest and saw the record of the last 40 years --. Take a Pole whose ancestors lived in -- in Lwow, in {Leopidus}, in Lemberg, and who now has -- suddenly hears that his nephew has to settle in Silesia, where never a Pole set foot for the last 700 years, where a whole nation has been just transplanted in Europe, a little bit, because Mr. Stalin said so--what shall the Pole in Buffalo say? Well, he says, as you well know, the Poles in Buffalo now suddenly say, "Help Gomulka. He's a Communist, but we must help him. He's our brother."

Well, these people have learned their lesson. They know now that Communism is an empty slogan, but solidarity of the world is not. Solidarity today is a real problem, posed by the world wars, you see, and not what is in your brain as a program. It's very interesting, this transformation of the whole Polish minority in this country, all of a sudden, you see, to this -- to this aid for Poland, although nothing officially has changed. But the people here have come to their senses and have suddenly understood that this is a worldwide problem of organization, and it is not a problem of ideologies. And what Mr. {Hoffman} did in his Committee of -- on Power in 1936, the Poles in Buffalo now, to their great surprise, sell their Representative in Congress. He was elected on an antiPolish platform, and now he's -- do you know -- remember his name? Does anybody know? A very interesting man. He's one of these Kautschuk -- rubber men who reads his letters -- the letters of his constituency, and then he knows what he has to think.

Gentlemen, it's very important what I've tried to say in a -- but it's very simple, too. I say that the world revolution made deliberately and consciously by the pope, as a defense of Christian liberty against the partial powers on the globe, has ended today in an avalanche. The globe has asserted them in its -- in its mutest, in its least eloquent elements--as uranium, as electricity--and says, "If

you wish not to be destroyed by these elements which you now have come to know, you have to treat them as belonging to one man."

So the strange outcome of thousand years of world history is that the carrier, the bearer of this worldwide organization now has to become one, because the elements are so terrible, and so mighty, and so complicated, and so disperse, too, that you have to set up now, you see, a unity in humanity which opposes the world, or which faces the world, or which utilizes this world as though it was one man. I -- I know -- remember perhaps that I tried to tell you that this is the problem of history all the time: to organize man in such a way that he can become more and more like one person through all ages. The problem of the world history of the last thousand years is that the world must -- can only be handled successfully if man becomes one, regardless of country, regardless of geography. It is a variation of my thesis. The world is space, and even space today claims that it must be treated -- as -- by -- as though it was administered by one person, by one mind, by one brain.

We haven't yet achieved this. The world already is one. Mankind is not one. And what is left to us in the next meeting is to discuss the beginnings of a new history, the history of humanity or history of society which will follow in the wake of this history of the Church and this history of the world. The world today is organized, in as far as it is noth- -- not organized and threatening us, and it is known. And this -- were the two themes in the last thousand years: to make the unknown world known, and to organize the world as far as known. And you can see for yourself that all these discussions today, as far as they are interesting--atomic energy, or what you take, oil, you see--are centering around this one question: how can the newly discovered world, the now-known world, you see, be administered by organization?

Thank you.