[526] here again, Protestant, or older Catholic traditions; and here again, Puritan or Lutheran traditions; and here again, EuropeanProtestantism^a [sic.] and American Protestantism---everybody is within the situation that he has to make decisions, because he is NOT one monolithic tradition^b in which he knows what to do because of the authority^c 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^d act? How can you act with the feeling of unconditional^e 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^f 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^g, and the totalitarian ideas.^h In the Roman Catholicⁱ doctrine of natural law^j---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^k 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^l 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^m theory which is maintained and confirmed by the authority of the Church. Let me develop this idea a little bit.