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

I'm not acquainted with the ac- -- acoustics here. I have proposed that this cluster there in the Eck- -- last corner comes forward. It would make it easier probably for everybody to understand. Could you do this?

Thank you very much indeed. Today is St. Andrew's Day. That's the end of the ecclesiastical year. It is forgotten today that this year does not coincide with the year, as you know it, January 1st to December 31st. That's an invention of the French Revolution. The -- Church has created a calendar with a very strange rhythm. We are now in Advent season, from tomorrow. This means that the Church has bequeathed to the western world or to anybody who follows its doctrines, a smallest unit of time compared to eternity. And what I tried to say last time, and in various intervening meetings with some of you, was that from antiquity, mankind has inherited and tries to preserve, more or less--despite television, and despite the radio, and despite the latest news--the notion that a year is the minimum to figure on time. That epochs, and eons--like the 19th century, and the 20th century, and perhaps, if we come to see it, the 21st century--are things you actually believe in, without much ado. Although it may be, if you analyze it rationally, or with the help of some of -- modern analysts, it is sheer nonsense. How can I, being born in Germany over there, and how can you, being born--or having moved to Santa Barbara, which is more probable--figure on the same time? Very strange, abstruse superstition. It cannot be proven.

As a matter of fact, in 1924, a Frenchman, Monsieur Alexis Carrel, wrote a famous book -- or a book which became famous, you may have -- all -- some of you may have seen it, L'homme, le -- cet inconnu. Man, the Unknown, in which he fabulously asserts to you and me that a child and his father--let alone his grandfather--have no common time, don't understand each other at all, and -- it's just an -- Stck -- a grandfather a grandchild is just a piece of wood, or iron. Certainly nothing living, and nothing he can understand.

This could be printed in 1924. And obviously it was surrounded by two worldwide catastrophes. Because whenever mankind abandons this unity of time sense, war and revolutions is the consequence. Mr. Alexis Carrel--I don't know if he got the Nobel Prize, but it could have happened, because even in Sweden, the people are sometimes feeble-minded--this man could pretend that you and I cannot understand each other because we were bo- -- are born in different years. So you see, the unity of time and the subdivision of time, as we believe in it, on St. Andrew's Day, at least, is very miraculous.

And I venture to say once more--I did say it last time--that the eras of the faith have bequeathed to us something which you well may compare to your and our modern power of measuring the infinitesimal small and the infinitesimal big in space. Millimeters and 150,000 miles is today a daily oc- -- occurrence in the papers. I don't know the distances to Venus or to Mars, but they certainly are beyond all measure, even of 10 years ago.

Exactly this, this figuring with the infinitesimal small and the infinitely big has been achieved for time long ago. Ever since Christ came into the world, we take it for granted that we have some understanding of the thousands of years that had to go by before the Lord could appear. And now, in achieving His mission, we are in the midst of at least 1965 years already, and we hope, if we do right, to -- even to reach 2000, which would be quite an accomplishment, I assure you.

This is not known. And since it is not known, I brought to you the message of an old New Englander, Jonathan Edwards, who in 1758, when he already was in the grave, rose spiritually in Edinburgh, Scotland, with his book The Work of Redemption, in which he quite economically and -- really meant that we were redeemed, bought back. He called it "our purchase"--strange expression for humanity--that we had been purchased by Christ so that the shortness of His life illuminated all of a sudden the centuries and thousands of years of human plight and agony.

So his explanation, Jonathan Edwards' explanation of all religious tradition, of Revelation, of the Bible, is this: that already the history of the Jewish people is rather abbreviated if you compare it with the prehistory. And in the life of Christ, it -- three years, perhaps 30 years--we take all His life, beginning in Bethlehem and the -- in the manger--still, it is the smallest unit which illuminates now all times. And although God is forever and reigns through the ages, He condescended to become visible in one human life, short as it was, because we humans have only eyes for the day, and for the year. Neither you or I know what a hundred years is. You can think you know in the history book, or -- in a lesson. But we really don't know what a hundred years are.

In order to learn how, in a hundred years, God carries His purposes out, one man had to live the divine life in these short-range measurements. And this is the greatness of the life of Christ. God being the eternal, condescends to become very short-lived. What I -- have -- try to say is perhaps best memorized by you in this capsule form: that everything we call "religion," we call "Church," we call "Christian era," we call "western man," has to do with times, and not with spaces. If you go to the Space Center and -- what they call here "research centers," they all deal with things below humanity. With things, that is. And they

all are things in space. You can use them today, or tomorrow. It makes no difference, because they are dead.

All things merely in space are this side of humanity. They are below us. You can use them; you can melt them down; you can build them up; you can build skyscrapers. And even if this skyscraper should last 200 years, he's as dead as a dodo as he was on the first day, this Mr. Skyscraper. That is, man dominates space. God dominates times. He says when you have to die and to go off the stage because you have sinned too much. We all die for our sins, because we are used up. We have contributed that amount, as any mast in the -- on the electric power line has to be renewed sometimes, so we have to be renewed, because our lot is to be here for a time. And that all this being here for a time, for all mankind, makes sense, that is the content of the life of Christ.

And so, every since Him, we have a yardstick. And the greatness of Jonathan Edwards, who lasted from 1700 to 1756, and ended as president for -- of Princeton, is then that the discovery that the yardstick for time is a very paradoxically short one. These three years of the popular, or public, effective stewardship of our Lord, and that we have here in this smallness, in this condensed form, the essence of all times, and can explain the centuries easily.

No other theologian, as far as I know, has ever had the boldness to make this paradox stick. And to say, "This may be illogical," he says, "to make a short life the yardstick of thousands of years. Yet this is what has opened our eyes. Because of Him, we understand what it means to bear fruit in human affairs."

We are not surprised now to read the -- in the Old Testament that David, you see, had to postpone building the temple, that only Solomon was allowed to do it. We know that Abraham left his kinship and his friends, but that only Jacob was allowed to see his son go to Egypt and become a real people. The length of time no longer frightens us, as soon as we know that the divinity of creative power has to enter every moment in order then to bring together the harvest.

We too, of course, who have to fight the -- Santa Barbara News, and the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times, and all the times of Hell together, are quite encouraged, I think, by this fact, that those times of sec- -- in secular print are not real times. They are pure accidents. And I assure you one thing: you don't miss much if you don't listen or don't read them. It is very surprising if you wake -- wake up after 14 years and look in the papers. Nothing is changed. It's still baseball.

The so-called "times" in the plural are -- as the plural says, a heap. And they don't mean anything. Tomorrow is not the son of yesterday in the Times.

They wouldn't sell. They have to have a new headline, you see, without any connection. And I have always admired most in the -- here in our papers this skill: they have excited us to the limit of our imagination with -- news. And then it's all over. Next day, you don't see one word about the whole issue. Forgotten. The next.

This is the opposite of time. This is dealing with times and days as though they were things. Like a jewel -- jeweler, who has a great selection of either rings or -- what have you, bracelets. But mostly just a single stone. And you can buy a ruby, or you can buy a turquoise, but together? Purely accidental. I am afraid, in most heads today it looks like that, as though facts were 1066, and All That. You must know this famous collection of misstated events.

The order by which the ancients achieved this, and -- last -- let it last to this day is the word "economy." God's economy with us, man, places everybody in his proper time. "In the year of the Lord such-and-such, this child of God was born."

And it -- "economy" then is the word which I use to remind you that it has a very noble origin, God's economy with man. The wor- -- house of God is the larger house, compared to all the other houses. And it had to en- -- be enlarged until it became the house of God. The feeling, however, for this house, and this is now my next topic--all this was repetition--the feeling for this house existed obviously from the very first day of mankind. You all know the famous saying, "Your house -- my house is your house," said to any guest by the host. The house of God was everywhere, where this primitive hospitality was extended to a stranger. It is very great. The prehistory of a catholic church, or of the Church universal, is not in sects. It is not in Egyptian hero- -- or Greek hero-worship. It is simply in the act of hospitality. Because it meant that the most -- the strangest fellow, not speaking our language, not wearing our dress, was sacred as soon as he -- entered unarmed--as Odysseus, as the Phaecians--the tent, or the palace, or whatever it was. And it is true to this day; you come to an Arab in the desert of Arabia, and he will not harm you; he will protect you against all enemies. If you come, you are sacred.

This ecos, this house then, already in the very beginning of our history had the character of a divine order, of an economy in which there was room for the newcomer, as much as the -- for the native inhabitants. And this is the house of God. However you call it, more is not needed. Don't think of the temple of Solomon, or of the Vatican City, for -- as the house of God. The house of God is where the known man and the unknown man meet on equal terms. And this was always called "economy." The law of the ecos, of the house of God, or of the house of the chieftain, the house of the king, the house of the patrician, the

house of the beggar. Because the poorest could also consecrate his own home into a temple, simply by extending this power of hospitality to the newcomer.

This is a very hospitable country. The eastern seaboard, as called by -- one of my friends when he came to this country, after four weeks of great enthusiasm, "It's a welcome club, America." I think he has there something. I don't have to recommend you hospitality, because you know it, and you exert it, and you administer it. But don't let it -- be belittled into something le- -- less than religious, something secular. There is no deeper religion than hospitality. It is im- -- unperfect. It's only one stranger, and this little family. But the es- -- essence is the same as when you go to Communion, 10,000 people. Because Communion is after all nothing but a stylized common meal. And that's what the Lord meant it to be.

As soon as the owner of a home recognizes that in the person of this newcomer, a command is made on him and has to be fulfilled, we are in the house of God; we are in the divine economy.

However, people have of course trespassed against this. They have slain their host; and they have sometimes slain their guest. Whenever such a terrible thing happens, you have a lapse from humanity, and has to be restored. And for these reasons, the Bible reminds us how -- of how often this command has been abused. You just think of the story of Lot, and his family, and the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, who were not willing to honor the guest.

As time went on, the extension, the expanse of mankind into one large family progressed. The houses became bigger and bigger, and the idea became--absurd as it now may seem to us--to build houses of stone, and pillars, and with tremendous paintings, and sculptures, to depict the true house of God on earth. And -- you know, the Jews were first not allowed to build a house, because it was superstition. And when Solomon built it, it had dire consequences for the orthodoxy of the Jews. Because God does not live in His temple. And if you look up Kings, Solomon, or -- the writer of Kings says very carefully, "Although I know that you, God, are not restricted to these walls, I still hope I'm allowed to dedicate to you this building."

The -- more comprehensive the house of God then in the visible world became by temples and churches, the more did individual houses and homes lose their standard, lose their dignity. The story of the house of God, of this economy of the divine spirit in all of us, is a rather sad story, because we find at the end that the peasant's home, and the worker's home, and so on, just became vic- -- and the farmer's home just became victims to secularism. Today's house, you will have trouble to find this house with all its dignity, where the father is the priest,

and the mother an elder.

And it is this -- the story, which I had to -- with which I had to preface my talking about these Marx -- two men, Marx and Adam Smith, because we shall find that they went out of this land of divine houses, or homes, and tried to find an order of the universe without houses. The whole story of the last 200 years, since you came to this country, since -- since 1750 is a protest against the strange idea prevailing for the previous 7- -- or 8- -- 8,000 years, that man's economy was done in homes and houses. Adam Smith and Karl Marx embody your own conviction that the world -- of economics consists of individuals who, we shall see next time even better, owe each other nothing, but cheat. To take advantage of -- one of each other seems to be the mo- -- healthiest attitude a man can take. Selfinterest. Sometimes they call it enlightened self-interest.

I had a friend who, when the war broke out, the Second World War, insisted -- to -- to exploit his funny philosophy of enlightened self-interest, to say, "But if I die now in the war"--he volunteered, by the way--"then it's just enlightened self-interest." He was never -- able to explain to me what he meant by enlightened self-interest. I don't think that incineration is enlightened self-interest.

But you can hear this phrase here. It's an empty phrase. But people, in their fear of being anything but individuals with enlightened self-interest, will even say they must die for their country by enlightened self-interest. I thought it was a sacrifice they made.

But they are victims of their own little brain. You can hear this all over the country, here. Enlightened self-interest? Down you go. Because they are gˆn‚. They are ashamed of admitting that those they love deserve their sacrifice of their own life. But that's what they do.

Before now going to the great upheaval embodied by these two, the capitalist and the Communist thinker--Marx and Adam Smith--let me once more remind you that this notion of the temple of God was visible even in our days. I have here a quotation in which at least a modern writer, Faulkner, whom you cannot -- certainly not date into the 17th century, speaks of the "household of the spirits." This is an ancient usage of the word "household." Another man, who lost his father on the scaffold through Hitler -- Hitler's -- henchmen, when he was 18 and his father had been shot, or -- hanged, as a matter of fact, in 1945, and he wrote this seven years later when he was 18, he says, "You know that not the --" the father was a diplomat. "You know that not his job, or the profession in itself was his concern, and well-being -- or his own well-being. That cannot be the aim and highest goal of life. For him, the most important thing was the relation and

the bond between people; and finally between God and him."

The house is the seat of these bonds which cannot be paid for, which aren't -- uneconomical, and yet which make alone all economy possible. I may remind you that the Curia of the Rom- -- Roman Vatican is such a house, and became the house in -- to which William the Conqueror did take homage. At the Battle of Hastings, he became a vassal of the -- pope in Rome. The same, the grand duke of Moscow, by the way, at the same time. That is, people figured that all human relations had to end in roles played in households.

Down to 1700, the political thought of mankind circled and centered around the organization of homes, of houses. The difference between an individual and a house is that in a house, you don't find any human being in the center. Let me analyze a house for a moment, because we will have to think of it in the next two meetings quite fervently, because they are destroyed today. A house is a place in which at least two generations meet, and live together in a division of labor and of services. And you would never call it the "division of labor" between a daughter and mother. Both serve. Helpers, you can call them. But the very term "labor" is quite inappropriate for anything that goes out in a -- geh- -- goes on in a home. Very important.

The word "labor" thereby is recognized as something post-house, word -- a term, of 1750, discovered by Adam Smith, by the way. In a house, you don't labor. We serve each other mutually. Sometimes imperfectly. There are of course some people who allow the others to -- to do the work in a home. The tyrant, the -- the pasha, the despot. But I -- may I remind you that the very word "despot," which you think you know for tyranny, means in Greek simply the lord of a manor. "Despotes" is -- "des" is the domus, the house; and "potes" is the lord of the manor. And despotism in antiquity was not a blame. It has only been made in -- has now received a blemish by these modern economists. They want to do -- have economy without a house.

Let's go back to the definition of a house. In a house, the center is held by no visible person. Because the mother and the father: already old; the children are young. If you have grandparents, again there may be three generations in a home. But that's today certainly an exception. Still, we may say that a variety and number of different ages are in the home in such a manner that you cannot point with your finger to anyone who runs the show. If there is one who runs the show, there is no house. Then it is a factory, or an office, or what have you. A home is distinguished by the fact that, for example, the sick person gets all the attention, and there is suddenly a new order. If one person in the house falls sick, the others have to comply. Even the husband, the tyrant, the despot, you see, has -- has to -- be very careful not to disturb the sleep of his little child. So he's under


In a house, it is absolutely uncertain who gives the orders. The necessity, the emergency, the hostile attack will set, you see, the pattern. If there are -- robbers, the boy who can shoot will take over and lead the defense, you see. And if there is a fire, again, the expert, the boy who has -- who has studied chemistry, will lead the attack against the fire.

In a home, then, there is freedom of adaptation, freedom of choice of your job, of roles; there may be more or less permanent roles. But nobody can be sure that he can always play the same role. Only if there is such a -- such a man, or such a -- daughter, or such a mother who wants to play the same role always, you have the destruction of the house. It falls sick. It better closes up. The child will go to Bangkok.

The house then has something which we have largely declared to be impossible. It has an X, a Y, and a Z in the middle of its spiritual life. You try to find this center, you can't. It is not connected with any one of its members. People always say that God is a spirit, or -- that He can't be seen. But they always think He is somewhere in the moon, or behind the moon. Not at all. You find Him in any home at work, because He is the dispenser--I told you last time, the word "dispensation" is the Latin word for economics--He dispenses with everybody's activity. And mostly only for a certain time. When the children grow up, it changes again. And the roles are all temporary -- roles. But they are very clear. They can't be missed. Everybody knows very well what he should do in such a house.

All this is destroyed today. You call this urbanization, or you call it the factory system; call it as you like. This house, in which the roles of people are distributed in such a way that the center is not in -- to be found in any one person, is the great creation of humanity. You find it in any tent of a Bedouin tribe, just as you find it in Santa Barbara, in any good family.

The second thing about the house is that it comprises land, walls, brick, material. It's in the material world. It's a thing in space. The house is only there where you can get out and in. You must be able to lock the house if you want to. You can leave it open. There is a yard around it. Down to 1500 in England, there could be no farmers without four acres of land. Couldn't you pass such a law in Santa Barbara? The whole -- what you call "urbanization" is houses without land. That's the problem. As soon as you have this, you have slums. No house in England without four acres around it. Why? Because man in a house is powerful, is human, if he can set the tone between the outer world and the inner world.

As I spoke to you about St. Andrew's Day, perhaps I may mention some other calendar secret of houses. In the ancient world, before the definite settlement into stone houses and cities, the people had a calendar of two half-years, in the moderate zone. One, from Mai -- May 1st to Halloween, with your pumpkin, you see, moving outdoors. Beginning May 1st, Walpurgisnacht, and moving outdoors under the open sky, planting, sowing, hunting, et cetera. And by November 1st, you turned inward. The whole Latin and Greek calendar is based on this assumption, that the -- the -- life is divided into two halves; one outdoors, one indoors.

Which is important for this reason, because again we have destroyed this harmony. Modern man has -- builds houses now, in which you do not know whether you are outdoors or indoors. That's the newest architecture, as you know. And this -- has a good reason. We have lost sight. This poor individual, this naked man with all his -- analyses and -- and despairs. There is no difference today between the world outside and the home inside. Very few people never have an inside. Others have no outside, perhaps. Too thin a skin. The great secret of our human life, however, is that in a house, you very clearly can say: "Out you go, in you come." The hospitality, the service to the foreigner, can only be exercised if there is a distinction between the foreigner--the man who comes in from the outside--and your own house and home.

May I sum up? The house that the pope in Rome administers, the Curia, or the house that the sacred emperor for 2,000 years since Cea- -- Julius Caesar administered, consisted of innumerable parts and particles inside this home. May I remind you that you know this, but you never make any use of it. You know that there were chaplains in a chapel of the emperor's -- an emperor's house. You know that there were. There was a chancellery, there was a chamber, there was a marshal, there was a chamberlain, there was a cup-bearer. That is, all the stables, you see, were under the care of the marshal; all the animals, you see. The treasurer had all -- was in charge of the golden chains, which a singer could get if he sang right, like Homer at the court of the { }, in Asia Minor.

The division went so far that the Earl of Warwick in 1500 had 13,000 -- 30,000 retainers for dinner every day. Because in houses, the life of the country took place. This has been so totally destroyed that if you read Karl Marx, on this same fact of the Earl of Warwick, he calls this feasting in the home of this poor Earl of Warwick, who of course was eaten dry, or drunk dry there, he called it "hospitality." Now mind you, that's a grave mistake. The Earl of Warwick didn't think that he was hospitable to these men. They belonged to his house. They were not strangers, you see. He wasn't the host to them. He was the lord of the manor. And all these people belonged to his administration, to his economy.

Marx was already unable to understand the old society. In his days, she was already breaking down. Today she is gone. Thanksgiving dinner is the last remnant, because there you try to find somebody who is not housed and give him a piece of his -- your turkey. And if you do this, you succeed in restoring for one moment the old order of the house.

All the history of the last thousand years, gentlemen, is not a story, as your Greek professors try to tell you, about democracy, and aristocracy, and monarchy. Decent people have always known that all this is necessary. You can't have a pure democracy. You have here a monarchy with the vice-president. The vice-president has to be there as the crown prince of this country. And even if Mr. Johnson would resign, he could not force Mr. Humphrey to resign, too. Mr. Humphrey is the crown prince, whether Mr. Johnson likes it or not. This is very interesting, because it's the last vestige of a reasonable order of the monarchy, that you know the heir, that there is no quarrel. And you know how terrible quarrels over our inheritance are.

I tried to write a testament before I left here for the West Coast, because I thought this was a wild country. But I let it -- it's too difficult; I let it go at that. May my heirs then quarrel, if they want to. I don't want to say anything in advance. Because it is too difficult to order the sequence of a home.

Now in this -- what you call econom- -- "economics" today, there is no such grandiose order of one house of God, or of all the little houses. And this has lea- -- led to innumerable misunderstandings. I opened Karl Marxens Kapital here at random, and -- here it is. Strangely enough, it is not bound in red, but in green. And -- in one place, quite innocently, he speaks of Aristotle discussing prices. And he says, "Aristotle says, 'Seven beds may have the value of one house.'" But you can't say this, because a house is something by itself. And you can't compare it to seven beds.

Now Karl Marx, being class-conscious says, "It must be slavery which is the reason for this." Now obviously IT -- it's quite a different reason. It's the sacredness of a house in those days -- a house couldn't -- couldn't have -- be sold on the market. You have to ask, you see, as a citizen, that another citizen took over the house. It was not a marketable thing like beds. Karl Marx is unable to see the dignity of the house. And he's quite surprised that old Aristotle doesn't follow the argument that prices are prices. And if seven beds costs as much as a house, then a house is worth seven beds. He says, "Aristotle says, 'It makes no sense,' he says, 'to compare a house to seven beds.'"

And that makes Marx very angry. And he says, "It must be slavery; that is the reason." I don't see how it could be. But I enjoyed very much this -- this defi-

nite impotence of modern man to see the dignity of a house, that house is not a marketable object. Now I don't -- dare to say it to the realtors in this town. They think it is.

I had a friend -- a neighbor of mine, as a matter of fact, he had been a schoolteacher. At 65, he was retired. And he bought a piece of land next to my own. And he saw a sign go up, "For Sale." And then he built this house, and he moved in. And we paid him our visit as neighbors. And I said, "Really, Sir, you -- do you mind telling me why you put up this sign, 'For Sale,' since you wanted to settle here?"

He said, "-- It's like that, you see. I really don't deserve this. It's took good a place here. The -- the land is too valuable. But I said if I'm lucky, there will be no buyer. Then I can settle."

So he was dominated by the marketable character of this land, you see, that he had -- felt he had no right to withdraw it from the market. Now turn around. Think of the house as something never marketable, and you have that house which has given rise to the word "economy" and "economics." The house is something to begin with. It cannot explain in -- by things. It is something that contains people and things, that dominates space and time, in which the generations come and go. In which the seasons are alternately experienced, outdoors or indoors. The house then is the skin around mankind as an orderly whole, for mankind never consists of individuals. But it consists of families, of workers, of fellows, of apprentices, of teachers and students. And it is always the sign of the community. And what is a community? A community -- exists only if it has endless time, if it is not a -- a club for two years, but when you do not know when you hope that it will go on forever. Forever and forever. And when you also feel, "This is mine. I'll keep it; I'll retain it, whether left and right, people do otherwise, I don't care."

The permanency of the house then is the thing which has led Jonathan Edwards to believe that we had learned a lesson for good. Adam Smith came. He lived as a contemporary of Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards died in 1756, I said to you. His book was published in 1758. In those years, Adam Smith already lectured in Scotland--in Glasgow and in Edinburgh--on a society which he called the "Great Society." He's the first man to use the term "Great Society." I don't know if Mr. Johnson knows it. Perhaps you tell him. The Great Society is found in the book which has made Adam Smith immortal. Adam Smith lived from 1723 to 1790. And he was driven to deal with an economy without houses; without houses, even outhouses.

Perhaps it is -- is for some of you are interested that I'll give -- the quota-

tion. In the second chapter of the fourth book of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which was the -- title giving to his -- his first book of modern economics, he says:

"The number of workmen that can be kept in employment by any particular person must bear a certain proportion to his capital, so the number of those that can be continually employed, by all the members of a great society must bear a certain proportion to the whole capital of this society.

That's not very -- that's rather trivial. But the term "great society," as far as I can make out, occurs here for the first time. And so we have discovered where Mr. Johnson went to school.

All -- all economists in this country have gone to school in the school of this Scotch professor of moral philosophy. When the houses were destroyed, were abandoned, when braceros, in one form or other, roamed the world--the daily worker, the hourly worker--the conception of a Great Society whose members were individuals, began to grow upon our minds.

So you may perhaps bear with me if I say that for 200 years now, people have tried to explain our lives without houses. When you open Adam Smith in other places, you will find that he means by "house" exclusively a house for sale; that is, the material building. The word "house" has, in Adam Smith's book, no other meaning but a house of stone, or brick, or whatever it is, or wood. But no organization is implied. There isn't -- the house has lost its dignity as having this power to bind together the outer and the inner world, and the past and the future. There are no children to be born in this house, you see. And there are no ancestors to be taken care of. For the ancestor, for the senior citizens, you have the movies today at reduced prices.

And -- it's the first time that it has happened to me in the world. I'm very old, but I -- still I had not been addressed as a "senior citizen" except in Santa Barbara. I was very grateful. I had to pay very little. But still, I felt deranged. An old man doesn't want to be called "an old man." That's the first rule of -- of behavior towards the old, as you know.

But people can't -- can't cope with children, and they can't cope with old people. And the society, you see, at 65, the man is through. If he -- he either goes to -- La Jolla or to Santa Barbara. And if he's born, there are so many institutions now to -- to shield this -- this child from parents' complexes, that there is no -- not the slightest danger that it can have a mother complex, ever.

The house is destroyed. And the economists have destroyed it by their

thought, because everything--you know this, yourself; I don't have to preach it--everything is first in our mind before it is in our bones. You think it first, and then at the end it is there, and we treat the people. And this is very strange. These -- all of these advisors of the president try to run the world as an economic chaos, or an economic order. And they have no way of seeing that there should be a place where nobody is in the center, an invisible place, where the spirit of God can move through his house, and order everybody around so that he gives up, and -- adopts, and applies himself according to the day's need in a very -- very liberal, I mean, in a very constantly changing mood.

That is to say, the changes in the economy today are decried. People tremble from the Depression. { }. If you had houses, you would not decry the changes; you would welcome them. You would say, obviously, sometimes we de- -- we deserve better, and sometimes we earn less. Today in this country, it is like a magic, you see: the pretense that we always must earn more and more. Do you think that can work? It's utter nonsense. Failures of crops is as necessary as successful crops. And it is much better to assume that in 10 years -- within 10 years, two are poor years, five are moderate -- years, and if three are very good years, you can be grateful. But the idea that you can have 10 better and better years is idiotic. It's the Devil who tells you this. All the people are devil-ridden, because they dare to write you -- to us that they can do it. It's absolutely impossible. I mean, it would be just as saying that you never can catch a cold. You know that for humanity, that's nonsense. Sickness is a part of health.

Such arrogance must be -- must be dearly paid. By wars, for example. That's one way in which God always visits the -- the -- the haughti- -- haughtiness of people. Very simple. So we spend all our money of the -- of this tremendous, you see, structure -- price structure now in Vietnam. It will go very fast. And the -- the reason is only not that we shouldn't try to be there, but the belief that we can do this, that it is within human -- human power to abolish life and death. Because death is also sickness, is also poverty, is also emergency, is also failure. That's all contained in this one thing: God created man mortal. And the idea that you can -- abolish our mortality is always the same crime. It has -- people have tried it. If you open the -- Genesis in the second chapter, I think, there -- they speak already of the sons of God, you see, who marry the daughters of man and try to forget that they are mortal. Everybody tries this. So the stock exchange now tries it. Don't believe them. It is not necessary. You can be very happy, and just admit that you don't have to be richer every day.

Because once you destroy the house, you destroy the small form of adaptation. In a house -- if the -- if the child stutters and stammers, or is retarded, there are loving parents, and sisters, and brothers who will take care of this child, and will not kill it, and expose it, but will cover it up by their love. And then it --

works. And after a time, the child is just as good as any other. That is, a house is small enough to invite everybody who is a member of this household to chip in, to help, to assist, to equalize. There is always minus and plus in any human society. The idea that all -- we all could be "A" students unfortunately or fortunately is not true. You -- want to have "A" students, you must accept the "E" students. And if you try to have only "A" students in any one institution, somewhere these "E" students will have to be taken care of. So you get finally the antipoverty program. Yes, because the -- too long have the people in this country looked only in the direction of better, and better, and better, you see. Now better and bigger elephants is very nice, but where -- what we do with the small elephants?

It is very strange. Marx and Smith have planned--or "described" is better to say--a society without families. Allow me, since I -- was allowed to begin so late, may I have five more minutes? Or -- thank you.

I could read you of course many pages of -- from both books. But it isn't necessary. Both men opened their eyes at a time when the only remnant of the old order of householding, of households, of chamberlains, and marshals, and chancellors, had shrunk into the platitudes of so-called "morals." Moralia, my dear friends--you don't know it--are the mores in a household, the -- the way things are done there, behavior. You think morals or ethics, you see, is something attached to the individual. Now I assure you, an individual can have no ethics. How do we know? Alone, man has no rules. Your love to -- your neighbor sets the rule, so the new morality begins between people. And the foundation of morality was the house, and all the ritual in the house. The child had to learn to pray, and to learn to work, and to learn to speak, for example, and to learn to -- to write, and the three R's were at first of course taught in the household. The teacher was just a tutor in the house.

Morals, ethics in this country had to take the place of economy. And I still grew up in a household -- large household, and we were down on ethics. We felt this was cold, isolated, arbitrary. I have never believed in the science of ethics. I hope there are no ethicists here, no theologians. But I think the Saint -- Alphonse of Liguori, you see, got into trouble, because he tried to have an individual ethics. It's impossible. There is no individual ethic, because the ethics, the morals--it's a Latin word, "ethics" is the Greek word--are the way we behave with our comrades, with our relations, with our friends, with our enemies. And that's again, as this strange point in the house to which I tried to draw your attention, it's this invisible point from which I am placed, and the other fellow is placed, you see. Since there is something between us, I never get the wisdom of a moral attitude from my own thinking. If you try to be -- moral, you are a moron. Nobody can be moral. All young men try, before they are engaged, to be moral.

Get engaged; then you don't have to think about it.

There is no such thing as morals as a practical thing. You can love your neighbor, you can hate him; you can hit him over the head, or you can help him. That's not morals in you, but that is an occasion, a situation through which you discover what is meant with your -- life. You can destroy yourself, you can destroy your neighbor. But to preach this, a lonely wolf, a lonely individual, it's the unhappiest thing you can do for him. He's already burdened enough by being alone. You -- don't put the burden of some abstract behavior on him. At the next street corner, there may be a beggar. He just has earned a hundred dollars, he gives the beggar the hundred dollars, and makes another hundred dollars. That's not ethical, you see, but it may be the right thing for him to do in this moment. How can you know?

We don't know what we shall do tomorrow. And the Lord says so in the Gospel very clearly. You see, leave to every day his difficulty. It's difficult enough to get through the next day. If you move, however, in some order of mutual affection and love, that's different.

Now it's very interesting that the word "morals" has led into modern economics. The bridge from the destroyed household of antiquity and of the Middle Ages to the modern economic order of things--as the consultants to the president now try to arrange it for us--needs the bridge of morals. Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy. Isn't that strange? And the first part of his book was just on the religious affections, and on the morality of society. And then he branched out. He traveled. He saw what was important in the new economics, you see, done outside the household. And then he dropped even the word "morality." The word "economic" is not older than 1800 -- or 1780, perhaps. And the word "capitalism" was not used before 1902. That may interest you. You take it today for granted that "capitalism" is of an old vintage. It isn't. So long have people tried to deal with these questions in a moral way, you see. And postponed the insight that the modern individual is not bound by household thinking, by housekeeping, by householding.

Adam Smith begins his book with a sentence which shows you the complete denudation, the complete godlessness, hopelessness of modern society. This is his first sentence, and then I shall have done for today. The first three words run:

"The annual labor of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life."

So instead of a household of three generations, instead of four yards

around a house, you have here the shrunken humanity of the "annual labor." That's all that is -- so to speak, the ground on which Mr. Adam Smith builds his palace of economics: the "annual labor." Now if I am right, I don't belong to this. I'm a professor -- all of my life; completely useless. You are -- some of you are students; some are here retired; some of you are just entertaining yourself as best you can. And we all do not fall under this notion of the "annual labor." I think I'm a very useful citizen. However, I don't belong into the economic tables of Mr. Adam Smith.

By this simple trick, gentlemen, of reducing the economic problem to the year, he has evaded the whole problem of the household. In a household, we think at least in three generations. If we don't think, it is not a household. Modern man has no households. I -- I admit this, because he is willing to change.

I rented my neigh- -- my own -- my house in -- on my own land the other day, I sold it. And the -- I visited the neighbor again. It was another neighbor, however, and a younger man with four children. And what did he say to me? "Oh, three years I may last here." He had bought the land, he had bought the house. Three years, that was the most he wanted to stay. I would have loved to -- eject him immediately. But he had signed the deed, you see. I couldn't do it.

In other words, Mr. Adam Smith introduces to your and my life the notion that all the economic problems have to be settled within a year. Unfortunately, as you well know, they aren't.