[462] in which the natural acceptance of these stories and symbols^a is shaken by criticism, you produce a revolt. You produce a negative revolt which then creates those long periods, perhaps for lifetime, in which the child which has been introduced into these symbols is thrown out of these symbols because it asked questions, and these questions are critical questions. For this reason, especially my generation, many parents hesitated, completely, and finally

restricted themselves completely from this act of introducing the children into the reality of a religious community^b, its symbols and its life. But if this WAS done, then an empty space, a vacuum, was created, and it was very questionable, as history^c has shown, whether this vacuum could be filled later on at all, or whether it remained a vacuum because of forms of resistance connected with the whole rebellious attitude of all younger generations against the older ones. So we stand before the great problem of giving contents, which later on must be or actually will be shaken, and often radically shaken, by the unavoidable criticism coming from the humanistic side, in the larger sense of that word; on the other hand, the danger of producing a vacuum which remains a vacuum for a certain time, and then might be filled by symbols^d of a lower or even demonic^e character, as it happened in Europe^f. What is the task given by this alternative? Now my answer would be--but this is a

highly theoretical answer, not in the sense that it is true in theory but wrong in practice--this is nonsense; whoever says that has never thought about these two words--but the truth in theory demands a tremendous toil and thinking and work and experimenting in practice. Nevertheless it remains truth.