The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Discussion

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: So, now that you’ve come with all these plans—well, then let’s get started.

[ 2 ] Emil Bock: We met this afternoon and, as a committee, tried to determine what we ourselves can do to contribute to clarity, what we ourselves must do. And underlying our work was the question of to what extent we should operate publicly. Now that there is such clarity among us, we realize that this matter cannot be reduced to a single formula, but that we must simply view it as a question of approach, and that in each individual case, the person involved must know what they are permitted to do. We now have a concrete goal in mind, and that is the course that has been promised to us. We have set out to bring together at least a hundred people for this course. After the course, we’ll need to take a major step into the public sphere, and that’s exactly what we’ll do. We’ve even discussed the entire issue of joining our loose organization and drafted a text for those who wish to participate. So we haven’t prepared a formal membership process for individuals, but rather a way for them to join in response to the call for a course. This would be the most practical way for us to attract people. The text reads as follows:

[ 3 ] The undersigned, who feels within himself the urge to devote his life to the revival of a new religious life to overcome the forces of decline in our time, and who hopes to achieve this goal through a new synthesis of culture and Christian doctrine, hereby registers for a religious studies course under the direction of Dr. Steiner and undertakes to treat the information provided to him for this purpose with the strictest confidentiality

[ 4 ] Union Representative (Name, Address)

[ 5 ] Rudolf Steiner: When do you plan to offer the course?

[ 6 ] Emil Bock: We plan to continue into September if possible. I have been asked to request an approximate date.

[ 7 ] Rudolf Steiner: Isn’t it true that, given my Swiss family ties, it would be desirable if this could take place at the same time as the other events here—in other words, if they could coincide? They’re counting the days I can be away from Switzerland. It’s a tricky situation. It would certainly be desirable if [the course could coincide with other events]. This will be sometime in September. [To Ernst Uehli:] When are the [Stuttgart] events scheduled?

[ 8 ] Ernst Uehli: The event is scheduled to begin in the last few days of August, with activities continuing into September.

[ 9 ] Rudolf Steiner: How much time would this take your company? Ernst Uehli: Ten days.

[ 10 ] Rudolf Steiner: This course would need to consist of fourteen lectures. Under certain circumstances, two lectures could take place in a single day.

[ 11 ] Ernst Uehli: A different event is planned for each day.

[ 12 ] Rudolf Steiner: But not on my part. So, of course, I can certainly devote myself to this course, except for the time when I am required to give lectures [at the congress]. If no other demands are made, this should work just fine.

[ 13 ] Ernst Uehli: Yes, I hope such requirements won’t be imposed; as I said, we want to start at the end of August, if it’s possible for the gentlemen to come here. Will there be events in Dornach immediately afterward?

[ 14 ] Rudolf Steiner: I checked—the last day in Dornach is August 27, and a eurythmy event on the 28th won’t be possible. Of course, we also have to rehearse for Goethe’s birthday; you can’t have a eurythmy performance on Goethe’s birthday without rehearsals. So nothing will be possible on the 28th if you want to hold the eurythmy event. Of course, you can start working on the project in general. But it seems to me that you’re running a bit short on time. It’s now June 15; so it would be possible, since there are still two and a half months until September 1. It wouldn’t be necessary any earlier than September 1, either. Do you think you’ll be ready by September 1?

[ 15 ] Emil Bock: We hope to have a hundred people by then.

[ 16 ] Rudolf Steiner: It’s safe to assume that if you have more than two and a half months, you’ll be able to gather more people than you could in two and a half months.

[ 17 ] Emil Bock: People at the universities should also be considered. Rudolf Steiner: Do you think that’s difficult?

[ 18 ] Emil Bock: We have certain options available to us; of course, this is just another set of options.

[ 19 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, if you’re not able to get this done by September 1, then it will be difficult to start in the fall. If you don’t get the people until after the universities open, then we’ll have to wait again—probably until the second half of October or November, I think. Right?

[ 20 ] Emil Bock: Then it’s better to wait, because trying to recruit people outside of the semester usually isn’t the best approach either. Would we still be allowed to request a course even if there are fewer of us?

[ 21 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, certainly, let me put it this way: It would, of course, be absolutely wonderful if we could hold that course in Dornach—if it were somehow possible—and if it were financially feasible. That would indeed be best. Because, isn’t it true, it’s naturally easier there to give demonstrations of ritual matters and so on. So in Dornach, it would be easier to organize the course more effectively. Well, last fall we managed to put on the School of Spiritual Science course by trying to enlist members from Entente countries to ensure there were enough participants, so that the attendees from Germany were guests. Of course, that would have to be the case here as well. The only remaining issue would then be to find a way, if necessary, to raise the money for the trip—which, for many, wouldn’t be much more expensive to get to Basel than it is to get here. So I think the trip from Berlin to Basel wouldn’t cost much more than from Berlin to Stuttgart, and accommodations in Dornach would have to be arranged there. But that’s a question we don’t need to decide right now; it can be decided later. I just mean that it would, of course, be beneficial in many ways if we could hold the event in Dornach. You wouldn’t rule that out in principle? The difficulty, my dear friends, lies solely in the fact that one could certainly propose to members from Entente countries that they support a general study course, since that is an international matter; but whether many people from the Entente countries would be willing to support German theologians in particular—that is the question. And of course we must explain why we need the support. That is the question. I almost believe that they would do such a thing, but whether they have the heart to support German theologians specifically...?

[ 22 ] After all—and this might interest you, though I didn’t emphasize it particularly in my discussions—what I told you would apply only to German theologians. Nowhere else is this issue as pressing as in the Central Powers. Even in Switzerland it would be completely hopeless; in France, and certainly in England—in fact, everywhere in the Entente countries—it would be completely hopeless; one would be rejected immediately; people wouldn’t even understand that one could do such a thing.

[ 23 ] A participant: I thought that perhaps we could expect financial assistance from the Netherlands. I also know some Dutch theologians—young theologians—who are sympathetic to our cause. Wouldn’t the Netherlands be a possibility?

[ 24 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, if anything is to be considered, it would most likely be the Netherlands. I do believe there are a few among the theologians themselves, but they won’t exactly be the ones with the financial means. I don’t doubt that there are a few Dutch theologians who might be suitable candidates; but on the whole, no one is really interested in it, whereas I believe the project could be financed here. Raising the money for the course in Dornach would be prohibitively expensive from here.

[ 25 ] A participant: What is the situation in Sweden and Norway?

[ 26 ] Rudolf Steiner: I find it hard to believe that you will find a sympathetic ear there. In Sweden and Norway, there is a strong conviction that reform can arise from within the Church itself. In Sweden, I was directly offered the prospect of negotiating with this or that person. People there believe they can actually reform the church anew, and where this belief is still deeply rooted, it has a very powerful effect. Here in Germany, it is not very deeply rooted.

[ 27 ] A participant: We’re not officially opposing the Church at this point. The Swedes could easily assume that this is a movement that maintains a neutral stance toward the Church.

[ 28 ] Rudolf Steiner: But people would ask you: What do you actually want? Do you want to found independent congregations or work from within the church? — As soon as you say “found independent congregations,” that will become very problematic. The Netherlands is then the most likely option. In France and England, people don’t understand that. In Switzerland, it’s completely out of the question. But I believe that we can get as much out of Germany as we need here. We can’t negotiate yet on exactly how to arrange this financing; we can discuss that once you’re in office. We’ll certainly give it a try. But abroad, as I said, I have serious doubts.

[ 29 ] You have absolutely no idea how terribly conservative Switzerland is. For example, there were almost no Swiss students at the Easter course. And the theologians are simply naive. I certainly don’t think that what happened to me the other day—just before I left—could happen to any of you. Two theology students from Basel came up to me and asked if I’d like to give a co-presentation against Heinzelmann. I certainly can’t get involved in giving a co-presentation. Well, anyway, they weren’t particularly committed—they were indifferent. They thought I should give independent lectures as well. Then they started talking about the matter itself—and that was really very naive. One of them said: “I recently read Luther’s speeches; if there were something like that again, we’d be all set; we’d just need someone to speak the way Luther did.” — Yes, there’s a great deal of naivety among Swiss theologians. Don’t you have colleagues there? No? Switzerland is very conservative; it will be a major obstacle to Europe’s progress.

[ 30 ] Nevertheless—and this is completely separate from whether we’re offering the course at all—I think it would be a wonderful idea to hold the course in Dornach. We could also combine it with the other courses, so that you could attend other lectures as well. But you’d have to make sure you can manage to get a few more people to join.

[ 31 ] Emil Bock: Do we have to wait until we've collected a hundred?

[ 32 ] Rudolf Steiner: I don’t mind if there are fewer, either. I don’t think along those lines at all, as you seem to suggest. I think that all the people we can possibly get, all the ones we can track down in two months—provided it’s not vacation time, but rather the university term—might not even number eighty, but perhaps only sixty.

[ 33 ] Then we’d just hold the course at sixty. We’d have the course transcribed, and those who join later would have to commit to reading it. You’d have to include that in your terms of agreement—that those who join after the course is over must read the course materials. That’s certainly one way to do it. I think you’ve misunderstood me; I didn’t claim that a specific large number of people must attend the course.

[ 34 ] Emil Bock: We figured we'd have to get two hundred people together for that.

[ 35 ] Rudolf Steiner: I actually meant that you need to have that many people if you want to do something practical.

[ 36 ] Emil Bock: There should be two hundred people ready to take action.

[ 37 ] Rudolf Steiner: Under certain circumstances, I can teach the course to those who can actually be reached within two and a half months.

[ 38 ] Emil Bock: Would the course in Dornach then coincide with the university course?

[ 39 ] Rudolf Steiner: No college course has been planned yet. We have a kind of course in Dornach, a series of events from August 20 to 27. Most of the participants are English, but of course we don’t want to limit it to the English. And after that, we’re supposed to come here [to Stuttgart]. That would be during the first fourteen days of September. So that would be one possibility for holding the course here, during those same days in September.

[ 40 ] Emil Bock: And the second half of September is out of the question?

[ 41 ] Rudolf Steiner: That option is basically out of the question because I have to return to Switzerland. However, if arrangements can be made in Dornach, then the second half of September would be a very good option to consider. I can’t say for sure yet. It is extremely difficult to raise the funds needed for what is necessary.

[ 42 ] Emil Bock: Perhaps Dr. Heisler’s first successes can [already] be noted.

[ 43 ] Rudolf Steiner: Just think, if this course were to cost you—let’s say—10,000 marks here, that’s very little; but in Dornach, if you had to pay for it, it would cost you 100,000 marks, wouldn’t it? Of course, we can hold it over there if we can get 10,000 Swiss francs there. It’s much easier for us to raise 10,000 Swiss francs over there than it is for you to come up with 100,000 marks here.

[ 44 ] Emil Bock: But it wouldn't be a matter of having everything paid for us. Many of us might be able to pay for it ourselves. If we could live in barracks, that would be more than enough.

[ 45 ] Rudolf Steiner: We do have accommodations, after all. But you’ll need to budget 4 Swiss francs per participant per day. That’s 400 Swiss francs for 100 people. For 14 days, that comes to 5,600 Swiss francs. So we might need about 6,000 Swiss francs. 6,000 Swiss francs—that would be 60,000 marks here. It’s certainly possible that we can get that amount there.

[ 46 ] A participant: As far as the timing is concerned, the end of September would be much better; that’s when many people are on their way back to college.

[ 47 ] Rudolf Steiner: That is a question we cannot decide right now. I think it would be easier to do it over in Dornach. It could also be done here, but it would have to be in the first half of September, since I have to return to Switzerland; and there would then have to be a six-week interval before I can come back.

[ 48 ] Emil Bock: It is very helpful to know what timeframe we should be preparing for. Then we will have discussed all the possibilities for bringing people on board, and based on our discussions so far, we have decided to consider pastors who are close to anthroposophy as a way to bring in theologians. We would achieve this by sending out circulars to all possible organizations. We have also discussed all possibilities at universities for joining similar movements that have a desire to reform religious practices, as well as certain youth movements. Some people have already agreed to take on specific tasks.

[ 49 ] Then we tried to divide the German universities among ourselves and realized that some of them would be out of our reach, so we considered organizing a small trip so that a small number of us could travel to one of those university towns.

[ 50 ] Let's share the experiences we've had with our promotional efforts; this newsletter is intended to serve that purpose.

[ 51 ] We therefore plan to propose, at least here, that we put together a brochure intended to provide a brief overview of what this is all about, especially for those who are to become staff members. And it has been deemed practical for this brochure to contain three articles: First, an overview of the general cultural situation, perhaps under the title “Intellectualism and Religious Life”; the second article on worship; and the third on the communication of religious doctrine—the transmission of religious doctrine. — So, at least for now, we have assigned three contributors to each article within our circle, so that the most valuable elements from the submitted contributions can then be compiled.

[ 52 ] Study groups should then be formed everywhere to study the transcripts of the lectures heard here. However, we have decided—in order to ensure that Mr. Uehli can sign off on these transcripts, guaranteeing that we use them correctly and only for our own purposes—that if the study group expands, members should contact me so that I may, in a sense, initially assume personal responsibility. Once the signatures have been collected, they could then be presented to Mr. Uehli. This group would also benefit greatly if we could obtain from Dr. Steiner the text of the rituals that have already been worked out, which we would then send from our headquarters to the various participants.

[ 53 ] Then something seemed valuable to us—something that does not directly address our cause but indirectly aims to ensure that, naturally as a side matter, in order to prepare for the founding and to support promotional activities to a certain extent, we should give lectures that are not meant to promote but rather to foster an understanding that a renewal of religion is possible through anthroposophy, and all sorts of suggestions have come up—for example, that perhaps one of us could travel with the Haass-Berkow troupe and afterward give lectures following the plays on the relationship between anthroposophy and religious renewal, or that we could give such lectures right where we are.

[ 54 ] And then I have one more request—which may be a bit much to ask—aimed at clearing up a certain general misunderstanding, namely, that we work to counter this misconception: that anthroposophy has a less positive relationship to religious practice than we have found here today. We have repeatedly found that, particularly in anthroposophical circles and elsewhere, people believe that anthroposophy has a rather negative relationship to religious practice, and so learning what has been said in broad terms would come as a great surprise to many people. For this reason, we have decided to ask Dr. Steiner to give a public lecture on anthroposophy and religious renewal in the near future, if possible, so that, if feasible, this lecture could be printed immediately and made available to the public. This would help the public recognize anthroposophy’s positive stance toward religion and would lay the groundwork for our work in every respect.

[ 55 ] Rudolf Steiner: Do you think it would be particularly good if I gave this lecture? You see, of course, the only thing to consider is how the matter would have the very best effect. So, if such a lecture were given—and given well—by someone who is truly immersed in religious activity, that would undoubtedly be much better than if I were to give it. Personally, I have no objection to giving this lecture; I would say what I have to say, but it would make a big difference, I would say, if Rittelmeyer were to give such a lecture today. I would very much like to speak with him about it, and I believe he would be of great service to the cause.

[ 56 ] Ernst Uehli: That ties in with a thought I had regarding the conference. I had intended, if possible, to include a presentation by Dr. Rittelmeyer in the program; however, he is not well.

[ 57 ] Rudolf Steiner: Dr. Rittelmeyer is not well, and it is hardly easy to find a replacement—at least for the moment, I cannot find a replacement. It would indeed be very good if a clergyman were to give the lecture.

[ 58 ] Emil Bock: We discussed this as well and concluded that it would only add to the existing range of opinions. In fact, there is no consensus among theologians close to the subject, and—as far as I know—there is always a Heisler/Geyer dichotomy.

[ 59 ] Rudolf Steiner: I don't know her at all.

[ 60 ] Emil Bock: Pastor Geyer says: Anthroposophy is not a religion at all; it is merely a science and, in that sense, can enrich religion just like any worldview. On the other hand, at least one of Dr. Heisler’s writings has been interpreted to mean that anthroposophy is intended to replace religious practice; and in the discussions we are familiar with, the antithesis has always been present. Now that Rittelmeyer has joined as a third party, it is even harder to believe. We were of the opinion that it should not be a lecture, but rather a small booklet. The request for the lecture was intended only to tone down our presumptuous request [for a booklet] somewhat.

[ 61 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, it must be clearly stated: It is necessary in the general course of cultural development that the origin and source of anthroposophy lie in scientific considerations. That is the first point that must be emphasized. Thus, one cannot argue that anthroposophy can, for example, directly take the place of religion, or that anthroposophy as such is merely a renewal of religion. What I have emphasized to you is that anthroposophy is needed for the renewal of religion and that a specific religious movement must be sought that can make use of anthroposophy. This must be strongly emphasized.

[ 62 ] Hermann Heisler: The antithesis arose when Geyer said that if I accepted everything Dr. Steiner says, it would have no significance whatsoever for my religious life. — And then I said: That is wrong, for anthroposophy is certainly not a religion, but it necessarily becomes a religion when it is properly understood, and it constitutes religion. — If theology is correct, it strives toward religion; it makes no difference whatsoever what kind of theology I have; and the same is true of anthroposophy.

[ 63 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, when it comes to Geyer, one must take into account that, above all, he does not want to come into conflict with his church authorities. Geyer is by no means of the opinion that he does not also expect significant religious inspiration from anthroposophy for himself. On the contrary, he has received a great deal of religious inspiration from anthroposophy and has undoubtedly also drawn inspiration for his sermons. But he has to say what he says today because, if one does not draw this line of separation, one is simply expelled [from the church]. They don’t really want to allow any substance to emerge for religious work, and that is why he says he is concerned only with God and not with the world. But that is, forgive me, in reality nothing but foolishness—it is nothing more than that. God cared deeply about the world; after all, He created it. I don’t know how one is supposed to—forgive the comparison—care about the woodturner without caring about woodturning. It’s simply foolish, but one must commit such follies if one doesn’t want to be thrown out of the church.

[ 64 ] A participant: Pastor Geyer gave a talk, and there was a very clear polemic against Pastor Heisler; and if another pastor comes forward with something like that now, it will only reinforce the impression that this is just another new opinion. — And what really matters is that something is actually said that then stands there.

[ 65 ] Rudolf Steiner: Just take the gist of how these things are said. If there is a real difficulty, then I’ll do it myself. But take the gist. The gist is as follows: It is said that anthroposophy claims to be the foundation of a new religion. — It cannot be that, because no content such as that provided by anthroposophy can ever serve as the foundation of a religion. Gogarten, for example, does say that anthroposophy aims to be the foundation of a new religion. In these circles, no one would be surprised if I myself were to argue that anthroposophy can bring about a renewal of religion. This does not diminish anything; it merely reopens the entire discussion. But if Rittelmeyer were to deliver this lecture—entirely objectively, even though he has essentially been pushed out of the church (the fact that he is still inside is a result of his popularity among his large congregation)—if Rittelmeyer were to take on the whole matter and do so from his standpoint as a representative of the Protestant church—which is how he sees himself—then I do think it might have an impact.

[ 66 ] We could even try something a little more daring. Don’t you think? I do believe Rittelmeyer would be willing to contribute if it were a brochure; after all, he can write. One could also consider combining the two—I’d provide one half, and someone from the other side would provide the other half. Maybe that wouldn’t be so bad after all. Now the question is whether someone other than Rittelmeyer could write it. Didn’t anyone else [from the theological side] contribute to the Lebenswerk?

[ 67 ] Ernst Uehli: No one but Geyer.

[ 68 ] Rudolf Steiner: Geyer wrote, and we don't really have any Protestant theologians other than Rittelmeyer and Geyer.

[ 69 ] A participant: There are still a few left, but they’re no longer in the public eye to the same extent; Schairer, for example.

[ 70 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, yes, he made quite a splash. Schairer gave a lecture full of warmth for anthroposophy, and that very same evening—even though he hadn’t quite finished his lecture—he got a dressing-down. The next day, the lecture continued, and this time it was directed against anthroposophy. That’s a prime example.

[ 71 ] Hermann Heisler: I don't have the list with me, but there's one more person to consider, Pastor Klein, and then the old pastor over in the Palatinate ...

[ 72 ] Rudolf Steiner: “You mean Sauter—an old man like that—he can't do that.”

[ 73 ] Hermann Heisler: Jundt in Mannheim ...

[ 74 ] Rudolf Steiner: You could do it. Don’t you have the courage to step forward with it? Don’t misunderstand me—I have nothing against writing such a pamphlet myself, but I believe it would not have as strong an impact as if it came from someone who wants religious renewal—religious renewal from a religious standpoint. “Well, he wants anthroposophy, and he just wants to renew all areas of life”—that’s what people will say about me. For there are many such lectures on religious renewal; they just haven’t been printed. I’ve given such lectures in Berlin: “The Bible and Wisdom,” which cover this topic. I really only need to revise what I’ve spoken about many times regarding these matters. I don’t know—you seem to think that people believe anthroposophy does not want to be a religion. But neither Bruhn nor Gogarten, following Laun, believes that. All those who have written from the Protestant side do not start from the premise that anthroposophy does not want to renew religion. They oppose it precisely because they believe it does.

[ 75 ] A participant: Rittelmeyer could write the brochure. Rudolf Steiner: He certainly could write it.

[ 76 ] Emil Bock: We also considered the prejudices that exist among anthroposophical members, particularly with regard to religious issues.

[ 77 ] Rudolf Steiner: Among the Members?

[ 78 ] Emil Bock: There are certain prejudices. Rudolf Steiner: How do you identify these prejudices?

[ 79 ] Emil Bock: People generally never quite know how to feel about those who are theologians.

[ 80 ] Rudolf Steiner: That stems simply from the fact that the kind of theologians you represent have not yet come to the fore. Surely you do not expect the anthroposophists to hold views about the majority of theologians that differ greatly from your own. The anthroposophists take the same stance as you have; that is entirely justified. In order to protect anthroposophy—even more so than has been the case [so far]—we will be increasingly compelled to seek out falsehood in every field, to seek out folly in every field, and to be uncompromising in our opposition to them.

[ 81 ] And I can assure you that Protestant theologians are just as guilty of folly as they are of lying. An example of this folly is Professor Traub, who says, “I claim in my Occult Science that spiritual beings move like tables and chairs.” He wrote that. When asked to provide an authoritative explanation, Professor Traub wrote, “I claimed that spiritual beings move in Devachan just as tables and chairs move in the physical world.” Since he will not admit that he wrote this in a state in which, for him, tables and chairs move, I can only conclude that this is folly. You will find such follies at every turn. Read Gogarten and others to learn about what constitutes logical folly!

[ 82 ] And then they lie, these people; they’re so terrible when it comes to dishonesty—it’s absolutely outrageous. It’s really true. Read the utterly sly manner in which a Protestant church newspaper—it’s called the [“Stuttgarter Evangelisches Sonntagsblatt”]—which made up this story about Bernard of Clairvaux, has taken up and exploited Rittelmeyer’s response. You really have to study it closely to see just how far their dishonesty goes. They are capable of doing the following—I believe I’m quoting correctly: In his rebuttal to the claim [in the Sonntagsblatt] that I had appointed him, as a token of gratitude for writing the book Vom Lebenswerk Rudolf Steiners, to the position of [reinstated] Bernhard von Clairvaux, he expressed his astonishment that someone [in the Sonntagsblatt] would claim such a [falsehood]. Now it says [in the paper] that Rittelmeyer was astonished that I had named him Bernhard von Clairvaux. Isn’t it true that they twist it so that it seems he was astonished that I had done that? That’s how cunningly deceitful people are. Everything people do is so cunning, and one cannot expect people to appreciate these things, because modern theology is so unclear that it is perceived as untrue. It is not a matter of being somehow hostile toward religion as such. There are some people among us who do certain things, but in any case, that is not in any way decisive. It’s just that various events have made it impossible for us to continue practicing religious rituals. Before the war, it was practiced to a certain extent. In Seiling’s pamphlet—which is also completely dishonest—you’ll even find it mentioned. We were already doing those things back then; we can even speak of an experience—that’s just how it is.

[ 83 ] In anthroposophical circles, perhaps at most eight to ten people have left the church since I began my work. That is very few. We have 8,000 members today—not followers—so eight or ten people is, of course, very few; the number of those who have left the Church is limited to this figure. They have left for various reasons. Recently, someone wrote to me again asking if I could advise him to leave the Church. I do not advise anyone to leave the Church, not even Catholics. I do not advise Catholics to leave the Church because, under the current Church constitution, they have no right to do so. I mean this quite seriously. A Catholic has no right to leave the Church because, through the dogma of infallibility, a decision has been made ex cathedra stating that a Catholic cannot leave the Church; he simply remains a member, even if he himself declares that he is leaving. Since the establishment of the dogma of infallibility, such things have been possible. It may seem like a strange theory, but it is absolutely correct in the context of Catholicism. As a Catholic, one cannot leave the Church.

[ 84 ] Hermann Heisler: Isn't a Catholic automatically excluded if he fails to observe the commandment of Easter confession?

[ 85 ] Rudolf Steiner: That isn't stated anywhere, nor has it ever been claimed [by the Catholic Church].

[ 86 ] Hermann Heisler: I have been told this by Catholics. Catholics say that this is taught in school.

[ 87 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, it is certainly possible for it to be taught. But you know, many things are taught and said. I’ll just recall the conversation between a secular priest and a Jesuit priest. The Jesuit said, “Under no circumstances should a Catholic priest read newspapers, for they are godless today.” Then the secular priest, who is more open-minded in his views, replied, “Well, how are we supposed to preach? We have to know something about the world when we preach, and we can only do that if we read newspapers; and you preach about all kinds of matters, don’t you?” — “I don’t read newspapers.” — “Yes, but you do know what’s going on in the world, don’t you?” — “I don’t read newspapers.” — “Well, how do you manage that, then?” — “I have them read to me.” — The Jesuit strictly observes the rule. — “But you see, Dr. [Heisler], I don’t know how one is supposed to be excommunicated. Suppose a Catholic hasn’t cared about the Church for years. If I wanted to go to confession tomorrow—do you think I’d be turned away? I don’t know how being excommunicated would manifest itself.”

[ 88 ] Well, you know, the strangest thing happened with the philosopher Brentano. Not only did he leave the Church—he was a priest, an ordained priest—but he not only left the Church, he converted to Protestantism and got married; but the Catholic Church declared that he could not be appointed to a professorship at the university because he was still a priest. Although he was not considered a Catholic—he had even been excommunicated and had converted to Protestantism—he was not permitted to take up the professorship in Vienna that he had previously held. Brentano was a professor of philosophy at the University of Vienna; he had been appointed in 1873. Then he wanted to get married; he could not do so because Austrian law prohibited the marriage of priests, and an Austrian citizen who is a priest is therefore not allowed to marry. Brentano became a Saxon citizen, converted to Protestantism, and married a Jewish woman. Consequently, he had to give up his professorship. He was promised that he would be reappointed later. That did not happen because the Church protested. It declared: He is a Protestant, but the effects of his [Catholic] ordination are not revoked, and a priest who behaves in this way may not become a professor in Austria. — Then Minister Conrad took the plunge, went to Emperor Franz Joseph, and sought to push the matter through in this way. The Emperor looked into the matter and said, “Yes, that’s the devil’s work—is the Jewish woman at least ‘clean’?”—“Clean,” right? That means pretty. She wasn’t, and Conrad couldn’t truthfully say that she was “clean.” “Then nothing will come of it,” said the Emperor.—

[ 89 ] Well, don't you think that if you believe I should write such a brochure—there's nothing stopping me from doing so, but it might be good if someone else wrote one as well.

[ 90 ] Emil Bock: Rittelmeyer has now written specifically about anthroposophy and religious renewal, but I don’t know if that’s relevant, since Rittelmeyer doesn’t know what we’ve heard here.

[ 91 ] Rudolf Steiner: But tell me, don’t you think it’s not at all necessary for the author to be a renowned religious practitioner? Don’t you think that, for example, something like this could be written by someone from your own circle—from among the younger people? Something that makes an impact purely through its inner goodness and substance? That it should be someone who is striving for religious renewal who does this himself, rather than someone known for writing from an anthroposophical standpoint? Even if it were done by someone who has no intention of becoming a priest, it would work. I don’t know why a younger gentleman couldn’t do that as well. It just has to be done well. Please give this some thought. Well, I will never refuse to do it; I would certainly do it.

[ 92 ] Emil Bock: I concluded my report by suggesting that a central office be established in Berlin and that, at least for the time being, the important work could be carried out from there—first and foremost, that, if possible, we be allowed to remain in constant contact with Dr. Steiner.

[ 93 ] Rudolf Steiner: That will work out very well.

[ 94 ] Emil Bock: Then we have something that falls within Dr. Heisler’s area of responsibility. We have been working on drafting the fundraising flyer, but have not yet reached a definitive conclusion. I would now like to ask Dr. Heisler to present the report on the fundraising plans.

[ 95 ] Hermann Heisler: We were well aware that, at first, we would probably have to proceed quite systematically—namely, by starting in a place where we had acquaintances and going there. These acquaintances would be found among the anthroposophists. It is not advisable to approach the local branches officially; rather, we should select a few people from among the anthroposophists who seem suitable, and have these people provide us with addresses, which we can then visit to raise funds. We are convinced that the vast majority of our members would contribute, but it would be better to turn to others first. We can count on our members; we don’t need to persuade them at this point. The person in charge should now bring together the people he has gathered to form a committee of trusted individuals, who will then receive instructions and carry out the work.

[ 96 ] Rudolf Steiner: I would certainly advise against making this a formal matter through the branches, but rather handling it personally and taking great care to ensure that members are willing to provide further addresses to people outside the membership. I would strongly advise this. In doing so, you will also find that, particularly with regard to this aspect of the matter, you will encounter many people who do not wish to officially join as members but are very willing to do something in this direction. Unfortunately, it is just a little too late for a truly fruitful fundraising effort. Of course, that will not prevent us from achieving a great deal nonetheless. It’s quite remarkable how strong the desire was everywhere in Germany two years ago—or rather, two and a half years ago—to donate the money people had available at the time to such causes. A large number of wealthy people had told themselves back then: “We absolutely do not want the state to take our money away from us.” The Keyserling cause survives solely on such funds, and there were a great many such people back then.

[ 97 ] Hermann Heisler: Isn't that perspective still relevant today?

[ 98 ] Rudolf Steiner: It's not as good as it was two years ago, but it's still available.

[ 99 ] Hermann Heisler: Merchants have a great deal of money stashed away. For businesspeople, it’s practically an art form these days to get rid of that money, and they might just hand it over quite easily.

[ 100 ] Rudolf Steiner: The tax situation wasn’t like that back then; now this silly tax issue has been added to the mix. I have no doubt that we’ll be able to get some funding for this cause. It’s one thing to get funding for the “Kommender Tag.” But for a cause like this, it’s easier to get funding.

[ 101 ] Hermann Heisler: I then also considered Austria. My plan is to start in Baden first. I would go to Freiburg first—I have a specific matter in mind there—and then travel down the Rhine to Cologne. I think that would take a good month. If this is to be successful, it has to happen quickly. And so I had a further plan that some of our friends could help. The matter is urgent, and I can’t possibly do everything on my own. If the course is to take place as early as the beginning of September, I’ll barely have a month, since August will be very difficult; that time is very impractical—September and October are better, but I don’t expect much from August. That’s why I thought that, since time is of the essence, if I asked Mr. Meyer to take over Hanover, then the gentlemen in Berlin would work on their own. If I have enough time—which I doubt—I’ll make a brief visit to the cities in southern Germany; otherwise, that would have to happen later. And it would then turn out that we would take a break in August. Then I might consider a trip to Saxony, perhaps also to Lake Constance, to Konstanz. There’s no point in making further plans, because what happens next must simply emerge from practical experience. Would Dr. [Name] perhaps like to say something about this?

[ 102 ] Rudolf Steiner: I’ll think it over while I’m still here; we can talk about it some more.

[ 103 ] Hermann Heisler: My thinking was that we shouldn't approach the local chapters officially, but rather reach out to their members.

[ 104 ] Rudolf Steiner: Certainly, but only through individuals, not officially; you won’t get much if you turn to the local branches. They hold a collection, and then people each contribute one mark. That’s how it works with collections. But if you approach individual people, you can achieve more.

[ 105 ] Hermann Heisler: I would always like to approach the board members and ask them to bring together suitable people. Well, then the question was what to do with the money first. I was of the opinion that we should open a postal check account in my name; we would then invest the money with “Kommender Tag,” where we hope to earn very high interest. Then there is some uncertainty regarding the favor that “Kommender Tag” intends to do for us. In addition to my salary, travel expenses would need to be considered for the gentlemen who are helping—that is, for Mr. Meyer and so on—as well as postage and the like, and for printed materials and all other necessary expenses. The theology course is also a consideration. We hope that “Kommender Tag” will support us for the first three months.

[ 106 ] Rudolf Steiner: I have only initially committed “Kommender Tag” to your position; you would then have to cover the rest from your own income. I thought that Der Kommende Tag would serve as a bridge, but that under certain circumstances it might later be reimbursed for travel expenses. You need to come to a much more thorough agreement with Der Kommende Tag. I had to be satisfied just to have gotten that much done.

[ 107 ] Hermann Heisler: I certainly hope so ...

[ 108 ] Rudolf Steiner: If you say A, you sometimes say B too, if you start off on the right foot.

[ 109 ] Hermann Heisler: Then we thought that would just be the first step—having people everywhere we could turn to. Then we’d put out a newsletter and continue the work as a matter of course. Once all that work is done, then we’d hold the course. After the course, the main thing is the ideological work.

[ 110 ] Rudolf Steiner: If spiritual activity is not to have harmful consequences, it must begin right away—by taking office or founding communities. One should not merely advocate for the cause in theory; it must be tackled in practice.

[ 111 ] Hermann Heisler: It might also be a good idea to incorporate religious elements into lectures.

[ 112 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, I believe it will succeed if it is done in such a way that all the young theologians who are now joining together in this loose association set to work directly toward entering the ministry and engaging in practical religious work. Promoting the idea, campaigning for it—I don’t know if that actually does any good. I tend to believe that it weakens the driving force.

[ 113 ] Emil Bock: We hadn't yet decided whether we should establish a cult right away or prepare for it by working on it.

[ 114 ] Rudolf Steiner: You see, the moment you begin to think about founding communities and taking up your true pastoral work, that is the moment you must begin to support true pastoral care through worship.

[ 115 ] A participant: Perhaps some are already old enough to start preparing. In any case, many are not yet; they should follow behind the others.

[ 116 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, that’s true; but most of you are younger theologians, after all. Especially here, there are those who won’t be taking up their posts for much longer. I don’t know if one should aim to wait until one has completed one’s studies. You can certainly found independent congregations quite well even after just three semesters—if you only try to really delve into the subject matter. Through the course, you’ll gain a deeper understanding. You must, under all circumstances, have the conviction that even now, as you provide pastoral care, you’re doing a better job than others who have completed eight semesters. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have enough drive if you didn’t believe that. You mustn’t let yourself be swayed by that.

[ 117 ] A participant: The risk is that the student will not earn a degree.

[ 118 ] Rudolf Steiner: After all, many people in other fields have done the same thing—they were enrolled somewhere and later obtained a doctorate, for example, as an academic degree. That would certainly be possible here.

[ 119 ] A participant: They might not let us participate.

[ 120 ] Rudolf Steiner: That is the question. Of course, it is necessary to earn this academic degree, because otherwise the prejudice would arise that only those who have failed in life do such a thing; that must not be allowed to happen. Even if you study this way for a while and then earn your degree after a few years, that can still be done. People have done this time and again—they remained enrolled and then, as you know, took their oral examination.

[ 121 ] A participant: If it’s enough just to be a pastor, then it doesn’t have any meaning.

[ 122 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes, do you think it’s difficult to earn a doctorate?

[ 123 ] A participant: It takes six semesters to complete the program.

[ 124 ] Rudolf Steiner: Somehow, it has always worked out. For example, about twenty years ago, Mr. Posadzy came to me and said: “I want to earn my doctorate in philosophy; could you please review my dissertation? I’d like to write about Herder.” — And he wrote a good dissertation. He just made the big mistake of citing my Christianity as a Mystical Fact. And then he was told: “No, if you cite Steiner, we won’t accept the dissertation.” — He didn’t want to take it out, so he came back to me, and I told him to go to Gideon Spicker, and there he earned his doctorate cum laude. Somewhere, you can always make it work. Of course, you can’t do it with Gideon Spicker in Münster—he’s no longer alive. In the past, you could also do it with Spicker’s successor, who was actually a windbag, but he’s not the worst; his name is Braun.

[ 125 ] Ernst Uehli: Who Wrote About Schelling?

[ 126 ] Rudolf Steiner: Yes. There’s also a colleague of yours who wants to do his doctorate in Basel—Altemüller—he’s part of your group, isn’t he?

[ 127 ] Hermann Heisler: Lauer, Doldinger ...

[ 128 ] Rudolf Steiner: Those are theologians. I am convinced that among the other students there are some (to Gottfried Husemann) who are taking the opposite path. Did they go into chemistry? If there is a movement now, there will be philosophers who turn to religious practice. This Ms. Plincke—isn’t she interested as well? There are undoubtedly many who will come over to theology.

[ 129 ] A participant: I’d like to ask about the “Bible and Wisdom” lectures—how can I get them?

[ 130 ] Rudolf Steiner: I’ll check when I get to Berlin. There were still some transcriptions available. Dr. Steiner will know, of course. I’ll see if any of those are still there.

[ 131 ] A participant: Is there any other literature on this topic?

[ 132 ] Rudolf Steiner: I’ll have someone look up the lectures. I’ve spoken many times already about the relationship to religion. It’s so very difficult to deal with people, especially in light of the vast amount of literature produced by theologians. If you refute something, they just rephrase it slightly; you’re never done with these people. It’s much easier to write something than to talk to people about it. These people cannot truly be sincere in their own sense. This leads them to speak untruths in other matters as well. They find it perfectly acceptable to tell untruths. Take, for example, Traub in this article, where—in addition to the other thing I mentioned—he was so brazen as to write that he could no longer remember the “Call for Culture,” that he hadn’t read it closely either, but that he could only say he had rarely encountered anything so bombastic. — That’s what’s written in this essay, which he was supposed to write as an authority; it’s full of things like that. It contains this lovely statement: Anthroposophy calls itself a secret science; but what is secret is not a science. And he calls that an inherent contradiction. — Above all, the “secret science” isn’t secret, and even if it were, that wouldn’t prevent it from still being a science, because “secret” and “science” are two things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But this literature is teeming with such things; it’s terrible literature. One of our members has taken the trouble to compile the objective falsehoods in Frohnmeyer’s pamphlet; I believe there are 183 of them. — Then tomorrow at 8 a.m.