[559] of the authority of father or mother which has almost papal or Hitlerite character, and where the same phenomena then develop. This sanctification, which makes the authority of the parents into an authority in principle^a, has all the dangers of the three great examples in the history of religion and politics which I gave you. And perhaps the dangers are even greater because this authority is implanted usually earlier than all the others by the reality of the parents, from the first day on, in the

family life. Here the same consequences occur, the terrible inner struggles of the children, and often also of the parents, between their feeling that they have the duty to maintain the authority of those things which they think are true, and good for their children, and the feeling that this perhaps is not the right way---but they DON'T KNOW which decision to give, and they feel permissiveness is not the right way either. Then in the children who not only have the element of trust, where a very personal form comes in, but also accept something of the sacred character of the family authority^b, if not perhaps consciously, certainly unciously, and the breaking-away from this is one of those inner

struggles and conflicts which most younger human beings have to do, and it canNOT be avoided, they MUST do it, and they are always tragic, i.e. always connected with tragic guilt on BOTH sides, the side of the parents and the side of the children. When we look at this whole situation, then we must obviously say: the human situation is such that an authority in principle^c cannot be accepted, must be rejected in all its forms. But this doesn't mean that AUTHORITY must be rejected. And these two sides of authority--- authority of expert and authority of trust---must be there. BOTH of them are actual in the reality of the tradition.