[526] here again, Protestant, or older Catholic traditions; and here again, Puritan or Lutheran traditions; and here again, EuropeanProtestantism [sic.] and American Protestantism---everybody is within the situation that he has to make decisions, because he is NOT one monolithic tradition in which he knows what to do because of the authority of the tradition. This brings us to the question: What is the relationship of the ABSOLUTE VALIDITY of the catogorical imperative, which we discussed last time, and the RELATIVE VALIDITY of every content which HAPPENS in the ethical act? How can you act with the feeling of unconditional duty if you are torn in your consciousness about the CONTENTS of this duty? Now this is a very serious practical problem, I believe, and I hope for all of, you who have an ethically sensitive conscience and at the same time the pathos of autonomy in

your judgment and not the acceptance of traditionalism and conformism. Of course, this is not self-understood. There are different ways of deriving, from the ultimate principle of ethics, contents which then must be accepted as unconditional themselves. I will refer to two of these: the Catholic doctrine of natural law^a, and the totalitarian ideas.^b In the Roman Catholic doctrine of natural law^c---when by chance I say "Catholic" with the adjective "Roman," please, [I mean also] the Anglo-Catholics and the Greek Catholics---don't feel hit, necessarily; it's a European tradition, where, in the practical life, especially in Germany, Catholicism is identified with Roman Catholicism---and it took me

years in this country before I realized that this is misleading because here the word "Catholic" is also used for some Protestant groups. Now the Roman Catholic position is the following---and it is a very realistic one, in our present situation here in America, where we have a powerful representation of a natural- law^d theory which is maintained and confirmed by the authority of the Church. Let me develop this idea a little bit.