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

({ } Dr. Rosenstock-Huessy and his companion, Frau von Moltke attended our somewhat unusual community Mass, Father Rivers { }. And at that time, or rather right afterwards, he was shown what we have here { }. And in the meantime, some of the clerics spoke with Doctor, and conned him into coming over to -- { } to worship in the community. So -- as I mentioned to Doctor before {has tried} this, we don't know what we're talk about tonight, but it should will be very interesting. I give you Dr. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.)

Well, it's just a gra- -- act of gratitude for this wonderful day with Father Rivers, that I'm very glad to be here. And since I am at the university trying to tell the people something about the religious and the political significance of the word "economics" and "economy," I may perhaps be allowed to bring this in tonight here, to this room, too.

And since you are Franciscans, I may perhaps explain what I am trying to do at the university by pointing out to you the story of the 13th century when the Order of St. Francis was founded. There is, to a degree of course only, a similarity today in our predicament as it existed in the 13th century. I have there announced in my -- for my last -- next lecture at the university, the two depictors, Marx and Adam Smith. I should turn it around: Adam Smith went before. He was the -- great advocate of free trade and world economy. And Marx was the great critic of this world economy and said it is atrocious. It neglects all the needs of humanity and it has to be overthrown by the marching battalions of the proletariat. And in this fight between so-called capitalism and so-called Communism--as it's called today; it was "socialism" in the 19th century--the two hostile brothers seemed to divide the whole world between themselves. You either had to be one thing or the other. And no -- {tertium non dato}, no third solution seemed to exist anymore.

Very strange, because after all, before the year of the Lord 1776, nobody had spoken of capitalism ever, and nobody had ever spoken of socialism. So what a -- kind of a world is this, that for 6- -- or 8,000 years has gone on without the two terms. And now we are told that: one or the other. Very strange.

And I have been puzzled by this all my life. And so I have been setting out to prove--to my own satisfaction, of course, as you always speak for your own satisfaction--that the two were twins. fighting twins, and negative as compared to -- compared to their antiquity, to their -- to their past. They had one common enemy called "feudalism," whatever this meant. They wasn- -- weren't quite sure. Everything before 1700 was -- is called "feudalism" in their writing, and in the

writings of all the writers of political science ever since.

It so happens--this may be accidental--that I wrote a huge volume praising feudalism in the 13th, and 12th, and 11th, and 10th centuries 50 years ago. And now the book has been reprinted all of a sudden, without my doing. So it cannot be quite so obsolete. And -- I discovered that feudalism was a very good thing. And so I was from the very first rather immune to this orthodoxy that you either have to be a Communist, you see, and proletar- -- a member of the proletariat; or you had to belong to the capitalist class. Even to this day, most people belong to neither.

And it came to me tonight, as I was searching for some connection between your experience and this strange situation between the left and the right in our modern, daily life--both lacking any perspective about anything man needs for more than the day -- the working day--that something similar has existed, and given birth to the Franciscan order. Now don't -- understand me right: the comparison is very limited. The comparison which I try to offer tonight is between the dualism of Franciscan and Dominican in the 13th century, and this -- and the dualism between Adam Smith's thought and Marx's thinking.

A -- very great writer on the 13th century--{Alfred Dole}, the man's name--wrote, on the side of his historical research, also a very nice novel called {Caracosa}. In this very sweet novel, which ends in 1260, with the great debate, you know, in the Franciscan order about the succession to St. Francis, he said, "At that time it was not a question whether you should become a begging monk or not. The only question was: should you become a Dominican or a Franciscan?"

So you see, it seems that in the world in -- where we live, the living generation is always tempted to only have, you see, a choice between two alternatives, and doesn't look behind the fact that after all both the Dominican order and the Franciscan order still belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and were a part of a much wider system of pope, and emperor, and mission, et -- et cetera, and so on. And the universe didn't consist of Franciscan and Dominican, although it seemed so.

Well, the point I have -- will -- shall try to make in my -- in my speeches at the university then is this: there seems to be a deep secret of our maker in asking the contemporaries of such great movements not to choose between one of the two, but to divine, to sense--to believe perhaps is a better meta- -- word--that both are necessary, that both are ingredients. You couldn't do without Dominicans; you couldn't do without Franciscans, although they'll never admit it. The Franciscans will of course have to say that you are sufficient. Gentlemen, you aren't. Nobody is. No -- we mortals are all limited in what we -- in our intended

universals. The soul of man is really in Heaven, but our realization isn't. It's very limited. And you have to choose.

All creation of anything, a--take a flower, an animal as God created it--is strictly, you see, limited. All birth, incarnation, realization has the pain of limitation. And it's the mor- -- that is the greatness of our -- the founder of our faith, that He took upon Himself this slavery--as the Letter to the Philippians call it, you see--and He became a slave. That is, a very limited being, being divine. And that's a deep secret, that the divinity at that moment has -- had to be -- represented in a passing, in a limited form, you see, of a life--we don't know how long; 30, 40 years long--and yet containing the whole divinity. You have there the same paradox, you see, that our faith must understand that as soon as anything enters our sensuous word -- world, it diminishes in totality.

And you may say that our -- the -- Christ has made room for all other men by this humiliation, you see. The divine, if it was outside of us, you see, we would never amount to anything. But He has made room for all of us to share it. And so what I say is very -- I think, genuine Christian truth, and a very mysterious one, that the variety of these -- appearances, of these forms, of these shapes, must always be understood to be mutually explanatory. And I do think it is not so difficult to find how the Dominicans and Franciscans, for example, explain each other, now, in retrospect, and outside the order. -- There have been, by the way, Franciscans who have tried this -- to admit that even Dominicans can come -- go to Heaven, and vice versa.

Whoever is a -- is a -- is an -- convinced member of one group has great difficulties to understand this, you see. That he has to go full heart and full blast in one direction, you see, and yet hope and confide that others will stress something else. It isn't too easy. I mean, all my -- our life, we are in this quandary, that our head can think universally, but our heart is of course attached to what we have to do, to -- what we have to suffer for, what we have to stand -- stand for in -- in the eyes of the world. We have to say "yes" or "no" about your own task. And that's very restrictive indeed. And if you think of all the martyrs, it is at one point where they have to stand upright, for one thing they are reproached with, you see, and have to believe that this in some way will transfigure or illuminate the whole.

This is I think for -- today for -- in -- in such a distance from the 13th century --. You may -- you may criticize me. I only wish to make a -- vague attempt to sh- -- tell you what I think the -- the necessity for the two -- the two orders was at that time, that the new cities--as you know, there were -- 5,000 cities by and large founded in Europe in the -- around 1150 to 1250. All new, you see. All the peasants moving into the city. And they needed an armament indus-

try just as you have now the Rand Corporation here, and -- and all the satellite building. It was exactly the same. The new knights, you see, the Crusaders needed armaments. And it took 156 different crafts to equip one knight and his horse with a full armament. The saddle-maker, you see, and the blacksmith as only the beginning, you see, and from the -- shirt he took on his body, you see, the knight, to the stirrup, everything had to be manufactured in these new towns. Because where else should they get it? And the old manors had not produced these artificial, complicated things. A horseman in the -- in the 11th -- in the -- 800 or in the days of the Romans or Charlemagne, usually had no stirrups; that was unknown. And since he had no stirrups, he couldn't bear -- could bear very little armor, because if you have no stirrups, you fall off.

So the practical, new inventions were just as startling at that time as our navigation to the moon. Imagine! Hundred and fifty-six--or -- that's not my own reckoning; I take this on good authority; it may 150, I don't know--still it must make -- set you thinking, you see, that as you see now all this new urbanization, these tremendous factories going up for the satellites, and for all the things, at that moment as -- when St. -- St. Francis appeared as a banker's son in a -- in a -- this town, he saw the -- this sprawling humanity without guidance, you see, without leadership, without Christianity really, because they suddenly were set free and emancipated from their villages, and their -- at the foot of a castle perhaps living there in a -- in a -- in a hut of clay or bricks. And now they -- they had to disappear behind stone walls in cities. And as you know, I don't have to tell you this, but just think it for a moment what it meant, that St. Francis said, "I, as a banker's son, now have to admit this new economy. I have to give up real estate," which for an American is unthinkable, and --. Because I think the -- the -- between you and me, we may talk religion, but the religion of America is in real estate.

That's man's real estate in this country. Well --.

So the -- as you know, the begging monks were called "begging" because they had no land to go back. Therefore they were proletarians. They were deprived of the one certainty man had at that time, you see, that he had his own land. This is the whole reason why this is a revolution. Franciscans and Dominicans agreed that they shared the uncertainties of the guilds and crafts in -- of the town. These people, too, depended on the import of their foodstuff from the countryside. They didn't claim that they had a -- a legal property right to these fruits of the fields, you see, but they had to buy it. And the -- the begging monks are monks who have no other budget but the gen- -- jan- -- the hope that somebody will sustain them. This was not begging just in -- for alms, you see, but it was the new reliance of a second-degree economy. Second degree -- one -- one grade removed from the original source, from the soil. And that was the courage

of the two orders. And they shared. And they both saw the same need.

And in this sense, you see that I'm not so wrong when I say that Adam Smith and Marx both relied on the factory system, you see, as the real problem of the age, of industry- -- what we call "industry." And the medieval two orders said to the Benedictines and to the -- to the monks of -- Bernard of Clairvaux, who are the { }, you see, and the Cistercians, you see. "That's all very nice about you. You have done fine work, Cluny, et cetera. But you haven't gone into the insecurity of the modern masses." And your -- your priests in France, I mean, have sensed this again, in the same sense you have heard of the working -- the worker priests, you see. All men in any generation have to share the frontline of insecurity, of uncertainty. And this was done in the -- 13th century by your order and by the Dominican order. And of course, first people -- the old order said, "Can't be." The bishops and the Benedictines, of course said, "It's impossible." That's why your OFM has its translation to this day.

But that's serious, I mean. It's an eternal lesson. This, both orders shared: their response to the situation, to the emergency--to the calamity, you may say, of these--to the homeless masses, who had to be herded into these new Inns, and guilds, and crafts, you see, differed. Of course you can always--our doctors unfortunately don't seem to know it sufficiently--cure an illness by different medicines. And probably must. It is not true that every illness has to be cured by one and the same panacea, you see, but you have to go several ways. Especially in -- of such an epidemic as this -- when a whole nation go- -- goes proletarian.

What is -- what is the difference? You -- you all know it just as well as -- I. One is called: put the preaching in front, you see, and the other: the light. It is -- you are indifferent, so to speak, to the differences of temperament, or -- or personal sentiment, because the feeling is the main thing. If you read the -- what St. Francis has left us, it is the Gospel truth, that every day has its burden, you see. { } means, as you know, the -- the days of life. And therefore the flowering of life happens, so to speak, new. When- -- whenever the sun rises, our heart must go out and seek its answer freshly.

If you do this, you emancipate every human being to its own language. Every monk has the right to respond, you see. The Dominicans, of course, not only saw that in Florence or in Assisi there were people starving for spiritual bread, but there -- that there were 5,000 cities. And where would you go if everybody, you see, was left to his own devices? They stressed, as you know, the teaching, the -- the unity.

Now I think without one and the other order, the solution couldn't have been found. One order had to start from the fact that everybody had to be told

the same thing. And the Franciscans start with the fact that the -- every day has its own revelation. The -- whole Hymn of St. Francis -- everything you read of him, it has this wonderful freshness, you see, as though it never happened before.

Pardon me for bringing up a -- a reminiscence. You have heard perhaps of the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. When Jakob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm, the two brothers, published this book first--in 1812, I suppose it was--they dedicated it to a woman friend, Bettina von Arnim, quite famous in literary history. That wasn't very important; she was a very good friend and the wife of a nobleman, Herr -- Mr. von Arnim, who had helped the brothers in their search. And so they dedicated it to her, because she was, so to speak, the -- both were at that time bachelors. She gave them a home; she -- she received them with her husband on their -- on their -- in their manor. And the dedication is very nice, but it is just pretty.

But in the year of the Lord 1870, the surviving brother was privileged to publish a new edition of the fairy tales. And he dedicated again to the lady. By that time she was a great-grandmother. And he said, "I may bring this again to you, because through all your life you have the kept the capacity, the power--the spirit, you can say--to look into the chalice of a flower as though you saw it for the first time."

I think that's a very good Franciscan remark. You have to keep -- retain the freshness, the -- the power to see every day as never -- as it never happened before, you see, as unheard-of. And the -- on the other hand, it's obviously necessary to retain the Dominican first sentence of teaching, that there is something to be taught, you see, that -- which is very doubtful today, I mean.

Well, it is { } question. Since everybody assures me that allegedly everything is changed, you see, since we have jets, how can we teach? Well we can. It's very unimportant, these jets, I assure you. That you -- that may change, you see. But the -- the great truth has to be preached, and -- as the Dominicans said. And that's why they are called the preaching monks, you see. It has to go into all the earth, with one sound and one language.

Now obviously the two orders have not split so far that this is not agreed by both. It is only the accent, the emphasis. What comes first, and what comes second? What is the thing that strikes the world first when you think of a Dominican, you see? It's a -- it's the preaching monk, you see. And what strikes the man first, or what is when he thinks of a Franciscan? It is this man's understanding for the situation, his indulgence in a -- the man's plight who is set before him. Perhaps however his own plight, or his own {blessed place}.

But the order then of our experience can be looked upon from the general to the specific, or from the specific to the general.

[tape interruption]

Both is absolutely correct, both is indispensable, you see. But it has certain consequences, when you -- where you start. And you see that Dominicus starts with this terrible anarchy in France: dissolution, so to speak, of the heretics -- heretics. And St. Francis has no time to think of the others, of their mistakes, you see. He sees his own mistakes. And therefore he's much more concerned with his own orthodoxy than Dominic with these Crusades. Francis is not a Crusader in this sense. And the difficulties of the Franciscan order, therefore, have always been the personalities of the individuals in the order. I don't think I say too much in this. And with the Dominicans, it's -- there are other problems, first.

The story of -- as you know, the story of the two orders -- are a very painful story. For the first 150 years, the suffering of the orders, you see, of these 100,000 people in Europe, who followed the call of the two faiths is indescribable. It is not an hilarious story. And the sufferings of -- of many of these pe- -- groups of monks on both camps is -- is really, even today, very difficult reading, because you suffer with these men. And they were made to suffer, as you know, by the established powers.

But I think in retrospect, forgetting these individual cases of suffering, we may now admire God's wisdom that He created both orders. And I think in retrospect you will have to say--or we may say, I invite you to say, even--that the hardest thing to formulate is why the two had to supplement each other. Because you can understand one order, you see, rationally, and the other. But this -- their togetherness is a mystery, and remains so. It's the same as -- between men and women. Why have the two to coexist, you see?

I have tried to show you one point that in the -- in -- it's not the whole story, of course, of their distinctions. But I think it is the first, you see, the -- the -- Dominicus sees the a- -- danger of anarchy for the whole Church, you see, and St. Francis sees the need of the individual soul as of this day, and forgets everything else. Or says it is not important. -- Other things will come, in -- in order, if this heart is res- -- responded to, is answered to by a -- by a feeling soul. Or if you give this soul itself the jubilation, you see, that the sun, and the moon, and the stars are her brother and sisters. I mean, the sun in the Hymn of St. Francis is of course the most sublime expression of this power of one soul to be in line with the whole universe, you see -- subs- -- as a vicar for the whole of humanity.

I think we today -- this is my -- my problem in -- in -- in the university is to

make people see that we would be the poorer if the -- Marx and Adam Smith hadn't both come up with very small distinction in time. In 1776, Adam Smith has written his Wealth of Nations, and in 1818 or -19--or is it -18? I think--Karl Marx was born, and published his Communist Manifesto, as an answer -- against Adam Smith, so to speak, in 1847. It's a very short time indeed.

And one saw the achievements of the industrial machinery, and the other saw the shortcomings. I think I shouldn't give away my secrets which I have to -- you see, divulge in my lectures. Otherwise you wouldn't come.

There is a difference between the 13th century and the 19th century, of the surf- -- on the surface, that these people tried to do without the old, religious traditions throughout, and said something utterly new, technological progress, machinery has entered the world, and thereby the conquest of new markets, the conquest of the worldwide system of production is in -- on their minds foremost. And therefore you don't find -- find any mentioning from them -- in them of the old powers.

On the other hand, these--that's why I have called them in my -- in my title of this next lecture, "The Two Defectors," Adam Smith and Marx. And in this title, I, so to speak, have criticize them, and even attacked them. They have omitted a tradition of mankind over thousands of years, which did not know of this -- of this industrial system. But between you and me, we would be unfair if now, you see, before I call them "defectors," I must also call them Siamese twins. I also must invite you to admit that both of them belong to each other, as is -- necessary. And we, as third parties, so to speak, do them an injustice if we think we can criticize one by the other. We have to look for the secret, why two opposite solutions, you see, outside the total former framework of -- of economic, legal, political, moral thought, you see, had -- awakened these people. And I warn you: you will not deal with them successfully if you don't give them this credit, that both have hit on something unheard-of, something that has never existed before: a world market, you see, a world society.

There is this great secret; how much of it is between the two, so to speak, without their knowledge, while we must try to spell out, you see, the togetherness of the two, deny- -- declining that one is enough, and trying to find what is correct in both, together. It's the same as with -- you will allow me also to -- as you will have done it of course over the centuries by itself. You have already made your peace with the Dominicans, although it seemed quite impossible in the 13th century. And you admit that there are various ways to -- to salvation. And one spark of the Franciscan spirit, and one spark of the Dominican is of course for a long time embodied in the teaching of the Church, in the tradition; also in the discipline you give every young priest, whether he is a monk or not,

you see --. Today all teaching I think that -- in the -- are in your seminars, is either Franciscan or Dominican. Of course, we must be quiet; the Jesuits mustn't hear that.

But you know, they are very clever; they know it. They know it, just obvious. They know that they have, so to speak, they came really, as a matter of fact, in a time when these distinctions between the two--Franciscan and Dominican--no longer were tolerable, as absolute distinctions. And the order has really { } the very first. I've talked to many in this order, you see. They know simply that they have to try a synthesis between the two.

Well, is that enough, for the time being? Wie? You don't think so? Any questions on this? Yes.

(You mentioned the fact that the revolutionary insight of the two --)

I can't understand you.

(You mentioned the revolutionary -- spirit engendered by these two founders of the orders --. Could it be possibly maybe linked { } their position in regard to their society with our position of -- say -- modern religious position to our -- our own modern society? Especially as spelled out by Cox in The Secular City? Well, he thinks it's a fact -- there might be a need now to forget, or to lay aside our former teachings about divinity, or he speaks { } the metaphysics of divinity are two of our tribal conceptions of God to wait until there is a kind of a { } political events of our time.)

Ja, this has to be subdivided, Sir, your question. We --.

(Well, would you say, for example, we have to approach a Christian --.)

We distingui- -- {Benadote}. Your question, you see, mixes very many questions. All ages are direct to God. That is, the Franciscan 13th century is just as present as the so-called 20th century, in my mind, in my heart; and the -- age of Christ, too. And we don't believe -- if we don't think the 12 Apostles are here today, just as they were in their own days, there are no 12 Apostles then, you see. Therefore, I don't believe that we live in a modern society, and the -- Francis lived in another society. Yes, we live in a society, but -- and we have certainly to learn very much from what's going on now. But this replacing of the 12th century or the 13th century by the 20th century, that moves me not -- except to tears.

It is -- don't fall for these slogans. It is a slogan. Modern society will be the real society if it is the heir of the previous ages and its own, you see. At every

moment, the Devil stalks around and say -- breaks off the continuity and says, "Immediately: the panacea, the new medicine, the new drug -- here it is." Then after -- this -- is in medicine, it is in politics, you see. The newest is the best, you see. If anybody who believes that something--because it is new--is the best, is mistaken. If anybody says, "Because it is old, it is the best," is mistaken, you see. Neither new nor old is a criterion for -- for the -- rightness. And the -- the newspapers try to persuade you that new is better, Sir. That is the meaning of the word "modern."

And therefore I have not -- never been impressed. I think I'm quite willing to change. -- Misunder- -- don't misunderstand me. But the recommendation, because it is new it is better, I cannot -- accept. And in the word "modern," there is a kind of praise of something new for the sake of its newness. And this I simply have to fight in -- my own breast, of course. I also think if I wake up to -- tomorrow, and I have a new idea that the new idea is better than the old; but sometimes I find it's just wrong.

So the new is not a criterion of history. Believe me, you see. How much blood, and heart, and faith you give to the new, that will testify to the value of the new, you see. No sacrifice done by an honest heart is in vain. Even our errors are forgiven us. Many, many sacrifices have been -- have given, so to speak, a blessing to the act. But the idea itself is -- is worthless in itself. It is not true because it is new.

You can now admit that Marx and Smith res- -- deserve and demand our greatest respect, because they saw something and spoke of something, which for 200 years the old powers--the kings of this earth--declined to -- even to speak about, I mean, to mention. This is part of my -- of course, I -- I will not say this tonight, because -- I mean, the -- the specific elements of this confusion--obviously the powers that be, the old -- the old teaching class, Protestant and Catholic alike--I mean, there's no difference--have at first the Romantic school said that industry was -- could be, so to speak, be blessed by some -- some simple adaptations, you see. And the more radical way was pooh-poohed. But obviously, if a -- if a child of 6 has to go into a factory --. I mean, I just -- give you one example how little the Church in the 19th century understood the newness. I give you two things.

In 1816, in the House of Parliament in England, in the House of Lords, there was a commission trying to investigate the state of affairs in -- in the factory -- in the factories of England. And a doctor was called as a witness. And he was so blinded by the prevailing wind of the factory system that when the pres- -- the presiding officer, the presiding Lord said, "Doctor, we are told that children are asked to work 23 hours, till they fall dead, or go to sleep in a factory. What do

you have to say to this?"

He said, "I see no reason why they shouldn't."

This is in print. So I mean, novelty blinds people, you see. The -- the magic sha- -- charm of the factory system was such that a doctor, a physician, had the effrontery to say in the House of Lords that he didn't see any reason why a child shouldn't work 23 hours, if this was good for industry.

And the second thing is, which is even more serious--I have to come back to this in -- over at the university--in 1866--this is 50 years later, after all--a commission of the House in England again, in the English Parliament, had to write a report on child labor again. And they said, "It is very painful for us to remark, but it can't be helped, that we have to say that the worst enemies of the children in the factory are their parents, because they sell them there."

Now this is unheard-of. You have never heard of this. But that's only 100 years ago. And this could be done with an archbishop of Canterbury and archbishop of York presiding. They are all members of the House of Lords. And it took a long time, You know, the -- Cardinal Manning was the first who went over to the side of the Irish workers in England, because they were all Catholics, of course, the Irish, working there. And he intervened in the dock strike in 1890, I think it was, one year before his death in London. Does anybody know the story? I mean, it's a great story. Was the first time that a prelate of the Church, you see, intervened in a strike, in an industrial strike. And said, "This is unheardof. I have to. These are my children." Before, this was taboo. It was -- a very short time ago, after all.

So the two stories, you see, show you how -- who we are. We are blind and deaf if it is against our -- in our interest to be blind and deaf. Every one of us is. Nobody is better than the {exception}. It is only when he confesses his hurt, his sin. The word "sin" isn't very strong today, you see. It is the sin of this doctor, of course, you see, but it's original sin.

And we don't listen -- today original sin is pooh-poohed. I see it everywhere. Original sin is much stronger than private sin. It is. I assure you. Just by being the son of somebody, and the grandson of somebody, that's original sin, you see. We are already marooned in some partial way of life, which we think is the absolute way of life. So I'm all for the restoration of the doctrine of original sin, you see. That's quite anti-modern. If you ask the moderns, they say, "There is no sin, and there is no original sin; certainly not." They laugh at it. It's the most serious thing I know of to be restored today. That's why I cannot go with the moderns. You see, I cannot talk to people who say that tomorrow there are -- is

no original sin.

I mean it -- is no end to it, you see. Most people live on the thought, the mentality of their grandparents. Even in California. And -- and that is what the Bible means by "original sin." You see, the -- the -- the Bible says in the Ten Commandments very simply that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the grandchildren on -- in the fourth -- third and fourth generation. Now we always -- you always think this is an outer punishment. It is just enough to be -- it's not enough to be the grandson of somebody. That's what it says. You see, each -- as soon as you allow the great impressions of your grandfather, that your grandfather was president of the United States, you see, then you get Ted Kennedy, you see. This is original sin. Because his older brother was president, he goes around and -- and wants votes. I think that's terrible. It destroys the democracy. Pardon me for being so outspoken in this case. I think it's scandalous, absolutely damnable. He has no right to this. Thirty years, this man is. It's just laughable. I hope he'll be -- he'll be - he'll be beaten up. Not just beaten.

Well, he just hasn't got -- enough spanking in his youth, obviously, you see. The spoiled, unregenerate, I mean -- son of rich people. That's what he is.

We all live in this danger, you see. Hereditary faith is not to be had, you see. And the whole problem of Christianity -- you see, when it came into the Old World, where everything was hereditary, when it came into the Jews where, you see, the -- the chosen people had their pedigree back to Moses and Abraham, it was unheard-of to -- proclaim the Holy Spirit, you see. And the more we know of our past, the more history is written, the more people study, the -- the -- the gen- -- the more museums of history are opened here and historical societies, the -- the lazier of course the heart of man grows, because you say, "My grandfather already did it." If you ever hear this, you see, the man has -- is becoming dangerous, I tell you. Because he is not longer exposed to the immediacy of something, you see. He entrenches himself behind something. It's very nice to think of your fathers and grandfathers. But only if you know you have to do better. And that this is no rel- -- no reason.

I mean, the whole problem today is again in jeopardy between blood and spirit. And -- perhaps I may end then on -- on this point, I -- I thought I should make -- it was really my main theme, when I came, and I only -- only felt the other was equally important.

If you think of the Hymn of St. Francis to the sun and the moon, written for -- in -- in midst of a citified generation, in which suddenly the walls of these cities, you see, took away much of the life and nature for the average citizen of Florence, or Arezzo, or -- Assisi, or { }, then you must feel that he discovered

the dimension of our inner life which was in danger of being forgotten. The communion with nature, with the created creation, you see, was not the first stress of the Christian Church that freed men from demons, and devils, and false gods. The second stage of the mission is to make sure that even in an urbanized country, the redwoods, and the birds, you see, and the sea, and the fishes in it, are honored. And from St. Francis to the zoo, and to the Marino--no, what is it called? Marino -- in Santa -- Los Angeles? -- Marineland--there is a straight line. I mean, the whole world has inherited from St. Francis this -- respect for the creature, you see. That hasn't to wait for -- for teaching and writing. It's -- the heart speaks immediately, creature to creature, you see, loves it. And this affection, this sentiment for the -- the creatures around us, of course re-built our own creaturelike existence, too. We ourselves have to become aware that we are not just {head} and orthodox, but we are also feeling, enthusiastic.

So my own -- from my own -- from my own comfort, it has always appeared to me that the first thousand years of mission--where people had to be told that there was Christ, and there was a new life of the spirit--had to hear first of Christ. And that the second person of the divinity, of our -- the deity, was then the bridge that led from the missionary to the human heart. He was touched by this pie, you see, of the Lord, who for us went to the Cross. In the second thousand years, when you think of the -- of the times of the Crusades to the modern -- the times of the satellites, and to the second Vatican, it is the universe of nature, the created world. And the world of the Father who, in the fir- -- according to the first article created Heaven and earth, who came first in human interest. And what you call "science" is the -- all this is the consequence of this emphasis on the first article.

Now the mystery of this is that when we say "one, two, three" of the three articles of the Trinity, we say, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit." I advise you in our historical existence, you see, to take the second article first, and to say that the way, the bridge we know of to any newborn child's heart, or to any unbaptized, unbelieving heart is Christ. You can only talk what God is via Him. And this is your great problem with the East today. Can the Japanese, can the Chinese, can the Hindus, you see, can the Negroes in Africa, can they become Christians? And you will not achieve it by preaching science. And you will not achieve it by preaching cooperatives, which would be the Holy Spirit. But you have to speak of Christ.

And therefore the missions are still in the situation of the first thousand years of our church history. You understand. You -- will perhaps now begin to understand why I am not interested in the variety of the ages, but I'm much more in the identity. This part of our Christian existence is unchanged. We have to begin with Christ. With the modern masses in Santa Barbara--or let alone Santa Barbara, I speak of Los Angeles or Chicago--you have to speak not of the

Holy Spirit, but you have to testify to the Holy Spirit. Because you have to show that people of different language, and different age, and different character can cooperate, you see. And the Holy Spirit demands in the next thousand years tremendous sacrifices of all of us, you see, because this is new.

People of all races, of all colors -- you -- only have to open the paper. This is our problem today. And it isn't enough that they are all Christians. But they must believe that the other fellow is a Christian, which is very difficult. It is very easy -- simple to say that all the Japanese are human beings, and we must make them Christians. But it is terrible difficult to believe that a Christian of a different denomination is a Christian. It's very { }.

Now there is a great -- we are surrounded by this mystery, you see, of the co-existence of the three articles of our faith. At any one time, the Trinity is very demanding. Where we have to do with the earth, and Heaven and earth, you see, and the created universe, we have to speak of God as the Father. Where we have, however, to reconcile crimes, and offenses, and insults, and pain, you see, which we have, you see, in our own selves, you see, in our arrogance, our shame, our anxiety, our cowardice--whatever the reasons are--committed, you see, all were -- just from laziness, usually, what I call "original sin" --. Because after all, if I am a Ted Kennedy -- why, I am a Kennedy, you see. So I have to learn that this isn't enough to be a Kennedy. You have to be baptized. And he may be 10 times baptized, it's all -- doesn't help. If he's still says he's baptized because he's a Kennedy -- he's -- of course -- baptized despite the fact that he's a Kennedy.

Now if you see then: history is not so very complicated. Since the world is discovered--even the Second Vatican has acknowledged this--the -- the third article of our faith becomes prominent, pre-eminent, you see, or in addition to the others. But the others remain. I give you -- let me close you -- close with a rather stunning fact.

Two thousand five hundred bishops, as far as I -- know, are -- were present in Rome. You may think that is unheard-of, only because you have -- fly, { } and aeroplanes can this be done. The human spirit has moved quite differently. In the year 1053 of our era--when there were no roads, there was not one stone bridge crossing the Danube, or the Rhine River, or the Po anywhere in Europe -- America was not discovered--a -- a monk wrote in -- in Lorraine to his colleagues, "The pope can no longer be elected by the citizens of Rome. The plight is too great. These local powers denaturalize, I mean, ruin the Church. The pope must be elected by the bishops of the whole globe."

So this prophecy, or this demand, this political request, in 1053 has taken all this time to 1965 to come true, which I think is a great story, you see. And --

you understand why modernity is not good enough.

Now, {friar}, are you satisfied? So any -- any questions, please, or any remarks?

(Doctor, do you -- do you think that the churches are going to have to -- learn to change their language to -- to be able to speak to -- to modern man? To -- to have him understand the Christian message today, do you think it's -- the language that we -- our traditional language is good enough for this task?)

No, you see, you are quite right. It's a central question. You see, we -- the danger is much closer. You -- in 20 years, people will know it. In -- in your lifetime. I will -- may not see the day when it -- people will understand that people are going to lose their language in this modern world of cars. That to speak at all is miraculous. You will have tribes again, where the leader will make speeches, and the others will listen, and -- and -- applaud.

I'm very -- if you go to a primitive tribe, you see that the senior citizens speak, you see, and the others listen. I don't see how peo- -- children who sit before a television set can keep their language. I think it's quite impossible. They become indif- -- they will become indifferent to the { } spirit, and they will not think it is creative in the sense that you say it, and I go. I mean, you know the how -- the {Captain of Cabernau}, I mean, when I say to my man, "Go," he goes. That's language. All the rest is bunk, I mean, the newspapers. That's not language. Language is where an order is carried out. And I assure you that the war in Vietnam is only a -- by the mercy of God an attempt in a moment when the Americans unders- -- lose their language with the help of all these television sets, you see, to remind them that there is a real language, where what has been said has to be done immediately. -- This is the way in which the most primitive contributions of the -- human genius -- you can call it "human genius," or you can call it the "history of creation" in man, you see, our language has to be preserved.

I think that these terrors in Vietnam, and I share the -- the sympathy with -- these poor boys who are -- dying there, but there is a good reason for this. The society at home is quite incapable of keeping language in its important light. Do you think that in -- in Barbara here, in -- at the university of -- of the -- the words have still their meaning? It's all analyzed away, you see. That's why your order is necessary, because the liturgy is still going on there, and has to be performed every day. You may -- must think there is a relation between the sacredness of the Word, you see, in your services and the looseness in which people usually today throw away all these words -- these verbs -- these sentences. Who can speak today with power, and with the conviction that what is said is done, and what is done is said? They say what is not done; that's the best description of

modern man.

So we are in great danger, you see. At this moment, the third millennium after 2000, it's really -- I won't quote Revelation, but I tremble very often, you see, about this realm of the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ is the man who says, "It doesn't matter." And Christ is always on the side of those who say, "It does matter." Now what does matter? What we say, you see. And -- seriousness is -- is replaced by sports. Or -- and the -- as long as this country has the -- the -- the sports, even a -- a Floyd Paterson as a hero, this is in a bad way. And any sacrifice is -- is justifiable -- justified in our lives to combat this, this destruction of -- of meaning. Play is not serious. And -- who -- who --?

We visited yesterday a very nice man. And he gave us a turkey to eat, which I have every reason to be grateful. It was very nice. But he's -- he's 40. And he said to me, "I've played all my life. I've only done what I like to do." And -- and now, he's 40. There's no fruit. Terrible. The most miserable man in { }. I mean, I -- I pity the man. I don't know if he can be saved, because he has not learned the distinction between serious and play -- seriousness and play. He had money, and he has done not -- it's not an evil man at all, but an unreal man. He never knew the distinction between seriousness and play. He said so. Now, for man to say this at the age of 40 is quite something. It makes you shudder.

And one thing you must -- have to produce, if you speak of modern times: the word "sin" and "original sin," you see, they must be replaced, restored. Their -- sense is unforgettable. It's most important today to say that original sin is around us. All the heirs of a fortune, all the heirs of deg- -- of Ph.D. degrees and so, they are all heirs to efforts made before. They must -- I have -- mentioned Ted Kennedy. Don't mistake me. It's very serious, you see. A country cannot live on quotations. It is not enough to -- to said, My," you see, "{ }." The question is how -- what is tod- -- has to be said today, obviously. In other countries, this -- this danger is much greater than here, I think, where there is still great innocence, and there are new- -- newcomers, and the country is growing. And here is much less danger.

That's why I was -- got so wrought up by this one case in -- in Boston. Because it is a symptom, you see, which I had met with in the old Europe. I had grown up -- the first half of my life, I have lived over there. And these people have not been able to understand what was happening to them, because they were satisfied with quotation from the Gettysburg Address--from their Gettysburg Address.

And even in this country, I mean, I don't have to tell you that we have not made peace in this country after the Civil War. We quote the Gettysburg Address

given in 186- -- which year?






Wie? Scandalous!

You know why you have to know the dates of these things? To say that they are bygone. If you don't know the year, you see, they fly around in you, and you cannot bury them. You have to say "1863" to know that in 1965 finally the peace between the Confederacy and the North has to be made. And -- we -- we bask in this Gettysburg Address, and have allowed something -- you see, a state of affairs in which 11 states with their seniority in the commissions of the Senate rule this country, although they are the conquered ones. Isn't that interesting? You could look at the chairmans of the commissions who rule this country in the Senate, and they all are from the South, from the vanquished states, and they all are racist, and they all -- make it impossible to make peace. It's not North and South, gentlemen, but it is the representation of the South in the Senate which is the continuation of the Civil War. I won't say names, but I could give them.

Well, only to show -- what I -- would like to leave behind you is: the next, if there is a new approach--or an additional approach, I would call it--from the Holy Spirit --. You see, the Holy Spirit is the avant-garde of the next authentic law, or movement, always. First, you have to invite people, unbelievers, where you -- who will not recite the Creed, you see, and have to live with them in some form or other. Look at the Peace Corps. It's an attempt to make people move in a still -- not-named spirit, not-labeled spirit, you see, so that then they will believe that it might be named one day, you see. The -- the fore-field -- how would you call it? the -- the -- how would you call the --?

(Advance guard?)

No, that's all Montmartre. I mean, if you have a fortress, or a fort, there is a fore-field, a field in -- around the walls, which is un- -- not covered, you see, by any building, entrenchments, but which is left open, left free. This is today the -- danger line. May I close with a story of Pope John XXIII, which has impressed us

all very much?

We -- I knew a doctor. He -- he drowned in the Caribbean a very short time ago. He was a Scotchman, and he was -- happened to be exposed to the -- he was the first or second man to enter some of the camps of the Germans where the Germans murdered their prisoners, and their -- the Jews. Belsen and -- the other, I do not know which it was. And he was so up-wrought that his whole life was changed. He devoted himself ever since this year, 1945, to the -- to problems arising from these cruelties, from the war. And he went near to Paris and built there a camp for all the victims--or not all, of course--but for victims of the -- of the German concentration camps. And with his great imagination, he established them in such a form that they made these people again into living beings. No rules. No Creed, of course, you see. No denomination. Everything, however, arranged to make them forget the concentration camp. There was money to be taken out at random by the inmate, you see. They could go out and come back at 3 o'clock in the morning if they wanted to. Everyth- -- way it was stressed that this was not a concentration camp, and they learned to live again. And this was an attempt to cure these poor people from their im- -- you see, incapacity to live. They had, of course, become completely hipped to this question of: What's forbidden? Who will kill me? And who is behind me?

Now Cardinal Roncalli was the nuncio in Paris at that time. And he heard, like all others, that this was a great thing. And he came to see it. Now you understand what I'm trying say is, how the Holy Spirit is -- differs from the second millennium and the first millennium because of this incognito that he needs. Because the cardinal had to -- Dr. {Westphal-Thompson}--that's my doctor-friend's name--"Doctor, isn't it strange that nowadays all the important things must be done by laymen?"

Fortunately I -- had read in the meantime an article in which it is proven that the word "laity" in the Bible comprises clergy and non-clergy. We are all laymen, including the cardinal, and including his sanctity, the pope, you see, because we are all people of God. As far as these are people, in the plural, you see, we are all still unlabeled. And we all have, as St. Francis one day, you see, to rediscover what should be said. This is what we call the life of the spirit. And that has to be found in innumerable forms. If you think of the Peace Corps, or of this anti- -- Job Corps, this Job Corps business, now, the anti-poverty program, the whole problem to meet this man in such a way that he doesn't -- be labeled. . It isn't -- you can't call him poor, you can't call him down-and-out, you can't call him a rioter, you see. The main thing is that he suddenly forgets that he's colored, you see, that he's one thing or the other. You see, you must talk to him in such a way that he becomes a human being. And a human being is somebody who hears from tomorrow, and not from yesterday. If we can make him hear

from tomorrow, you see, he's -- can become a child of the spirit.

Thank you.


(Doctor. Doctor has gracious consented to put in another appearance, and -- probably next week. Is that -- toward the end of the week?)

It's -- up to you. I told you. I mean, you -- you know how these -- people are.

(Oh, I know.)

They are all scheduled, you see. I'm not.

(Well, we can -- I can let you know { }. We can work out a date. { }.)

Well, I told you. You can dispose of me, and let me know -- tell you.

(Okay. We'll dispose of you. I said, we'll dispose of you.)

But don't dispense with me.