 Thank you, Gülsün also again, see you again for your generous hospitality. I came here with great pleasure and I look forward now to share with all of you some thoughts that fit namely to Sunday. Originally we planned this speech for Saturday, then we had to change, so it's even better now because Sunday for me, memory from early childhood, this is going to the church. So it fits quite well that two scopes now, me and afterwards Frank will speak about subjects relating to religion. So this is something like going to the Holy Mass Sunday morning with the tie, you know, everything fitting to that event. I have some memories, some very strong memories to church relationships. One went to the church on Sunday morning with my own family. I did the same in the beginning until then finally I quit my membership in that organization called Catholic Church, but I'm still interested in it and I have some memories of it that are not bad. So now this topic today is not just about religion but about law of course since I'm a lawyer. This time not about my lawsuits, still in preparation against this confederation, maybe another year I will come back to this. But today we have this topic from divine law to papal infallibility and back again. You have some handout. This is not because it's that important that you have to take it in hands and file in your most important documents but just because the letters would be too small to see. So you can follow this chart. This chart will accompany us during these ideas I'm going to share with you now. We have the blue line and the yellow line. This is not a subway line but the blue line is the pope line. This is the church line and the yellow line is the state line, the king line however you call it. So the one is up there near heaven has to do with God, with ideas, with higher spheres. There down you have the feet on the ground, earth, world, reality. And you always have in history I think some interesting relations. There is a certain competition. There are parallelities between these two lines. And this also is in connection of these issues we are going to look at now. So for instance papal supremacy, ganosa, is in a certain relation, certain competition so to speak with the states or the kings, absolutism, things like that. But this is early times. What is also an interesting relation is how to deal with that upper, that farer sphere up there in heaven so to speak. What about divine law which was a big tradition in earlier times? Lexeterna, the eternal law, regularities that we do not know precisely but we can try to understand them. And of course the church had an important role on that. Thomas Aquinas for instance and the whole ecclesiastical magisterium. So how to communicate it with the world that was a big issue of course. And on the other hand you say the corresponding issue back there on earth is science. Science and for instance now what the king as such is concerned. What about the position of the king? Interesting book in the Scottish Enlightenment. Lex, I always mentioned that book. Lex, which means that not Lex, Lex is not superior to Lex but it's the other way around. He also is under some laws. Which laws again is the difficult question? Then we come a bit closer now historically in the 19th century which is always an interesting time frame for such questions. And here now we have an aspect of legitimation that comes up. How shall we legitimize the king? He is not just there absolutistic but he looks for some legitimation. For instance that he is covered by some Lex, by some laws. So legitimation comes up as a postulate so to speak for the state, for the king. And corresponding, maybe this is a bit strange now but I will explain that. Corresponding on the level of religion of the blue line so to speak we have Mary immaculate conceived. This is not too confound with the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. So Mary immaculate conceived. This is the moment nine months before Mary's birth. And it means that's a ecclesiastical dogma. That in the very moment Mary was conceived in the belly of her mother she was not just a human being as any others but she was immaculate, free of original sin. Whatever this picture then means we will come back to this. But this was in 1854 a dogma issued by the Catholic Church. And now it becomes more interesting for our subject. On the one hand one could say legitimation and maybe power also comes up. In Italy, prominently in Italy this Risorgimento, this unification movement of Italy. Still a monarch but a constitutional monarch, Vittorio Emanuele who had the function to unify this country. And you could say on the other hand on the blue line you also have a movement into more organized structures and it's not by coincidence that just in those times Pope Pius IX did assemble this first Vatican Council. So there are many councils in history but not in Rome. And this is not by accident that it was there to underline to show that we also have some centralized organization comparable to national states coming up in that time. And within this Vatican Council among other decisions this famous papal infallibility was decided. And this now meant that unlike earlier when one just tried to understand these other spheres, now the Pope he knows it. Once he declared something within his infallibility then it's not just trying to understand it but then it's like that. This is another function and more precise and more decisive function the Pope has. Now he knows these other spheres. One could say it's then the basis for positivation of that divine law. So this is an interesting development until that time 1870. This person I mentioned already plays an important role there. Pius IX was elected as Pope 1846. Then this dogma I already mentioned comes from him. He firmly resisted this movement for unification of Italy and then this first Vatican Council. With some points not to discuss today more in detail. Supremacy of papal jurisdiction. Some preparation for a codex also comparable to the corresponding movements in the states. And now this papal infallibility that was decided in that council. Now what is this? This papal infallibility. That was decided on the 18th of July 1870 within a document called Pastor Eternus. Eternal shepherd. And there in chapter four we have this text here translated from Latin of course. We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, the Pope, when he speaks ex cathedra. So a bit like me now, you know. So in a formal way. That is when in discharge of an office of pastor and doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. This really fits like a church Sunday morning. What I'm telling you now, this is a bit from the council in German. That's the priest in the church. It fits to this situation. So when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church. Then by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter who is the personification of the Pope function. He is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals. And that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the church. So that's not a democratic structure. Irreformable. This is the infallibility dogma. What is now the consequence that is always interesting for lawyers. You know, you have some norm. You have to do this or that. But what is if somebody does not agree, does object to it. And for that point too, there is an answer. So then should anyone which God forbid have the temerity to reject this definition of ours, let him be a natema. We come to this also is something like it's not, he will not be burned or tortured. We are the 19th century. We are not under the inquisition. Anathema is more like excommunication. He will not be one of ours anymore, not a true invasive function, but nevertheless a function. So this was this proud infallibility dogma. And now you perhaps are asking yourself, what is the church now going to do with this? Let's say an interesting rationalized basis of a sort of absolute power to have the truth, things like that. Is now the church going out and conquering the world with this certainty that the church, the pope itself, he can define what the laws are. Now this was not precisely the case because quite soon afterwards it is between the 11th and 12th September. Precisely the opposite happened. Italian troops entered the church state, conquered Rome without any resistance. So that was the primary result of this infallibility dogma historically. So our poor pope, Pius IX, after having defined this papal infallibility, he lost in a way the political competition. He still refused to be officially tolerated by the new Italian state. He was offered this tattoo of guarantee which he refused. He died a couple of years later and maybe sort of consolation for him perhaps in the year 2000. He was beatified by John Paul II and it's quite interesting. We can't do that too in the memorandum so to speak for this beatification. It was said that his special, you know, what he did in order then to be beatified was harmonizing faith and reason, which was an interesting combination. Now let's see that again on our chart. Now we were just in the middle there, this cross road 1870. And now we saw this papal infallibility, not much came out of this, you know, on the blue line. No really strong use of this infability, some plans for codifications but that came much later then. On the other hand here we have something quite strong concerning infallibility. So one could say that at that cross point and where the state was the winner against the church in that historical context and where the church defined something like infallibility, it was finally the state who took that sort of like a prey. So he took that with him and used it on his line, on the yellow line quite extensively as you know which is our problem today out of that. So the state then he was able not only to know what the laws are, he was now in a position to make the laws. He now became the source of law which was not the case in earlier times. Then just to mention it, by the way, the Lateran Treaty that was an arrangement between church and the state in the 20th century. We have in 1950 something again has to do with theological dogmas, Mary's assumption to heaven, we come back to this too. We have the state who is not interested about these other fears. He makes the law himself but we have the church who still tries to understand what about other's fears that we do not know that precisely. So we have now the whole chart and how this corresponds. Now to look at the blue chart a bit more precise now what was made with this papal infallibility, nevertheless something was made with it, not very much but this. On the one hand that dogma, Mary's assumption to heaven, a beautiful picture if you want, that was declared not just as a dogma but based on papal infallibility. This was the first and almost only decision under this infallibility clause. So a purely theological aspect that Mary was after her death assumed in heaven and retroactively this Mary immaculate. This dogma also was declared to be true under the infallibility dogma. So beautiful pictures, Mary immaculate, Mary assumption to heaven. This was what came out in applying this infallibility dogma. So something which has to do with heaven from heaven to heaven and things like that. And out of this this is quite interesting then came a sort of legitimation of religious truth. One could say out of this we have the Pope with his papal infallibility. We have those divine laws out there, some diffuse issues and between Mary as a symbol of the church sort of interface. One could say between those spheres and our world. And here we have now based on this infallibility an argument that must be put in there because why is the church in a position to define what is up there, what are these norms, moral norm, things like that. And once this goes via church, the church must be something, of course it's something on earth, but it should also have the cleanness so to speak in order to be able to transform this back down to us. So it's sort of rational that even though the church Mary as a symbol is part of earth, it must be free of sin immaculate. And also Mary is something of this world, the church is in this world, but in a way that's why it was assumed to heaven in a way it's from another world. So these two aspects need to be inbuilt in the logic of this legitimation. And out of this then comes, you know, that you have sort of application of this, comes down to doctrine regarding faith and morals for all Christians. And again, should anyone have the temerity to reject this, he shall be anathema, which is, I always said that something quite non-invasive one could say in that case, let him be not one of ours anymore, that's all, that's the sanction. So sort of we, the church respect here the right one could say of the people to be left alone. This is the whole consequence. We have our rationality and therefore these are our laws and our morals, but if one does not accept this, okay, then here's not one of ours. Actually, one could say a convincing scheme, maybe this is also what was said later that it was a harmonization of faith and reason and rationality. You recall this beatification of John, of Pope P.S. Knight, that he was beatified because of this. He had ideas to harmonize, harmonize faith and reason. Now what about the yellow line? Something quite similar but not identical. Here too we have this institution, it's not the church, but it's the national state that came up this organization. We heard yesterday from Professor Norman that this was a new structure like Fukuyama, end of history, the national state with his organizations and so on, this is sort of corresponding to secular rise structure instead of the church. That is the national state. He is not anymore interface to some higher spheres, but he himself is the original source of law. So that higher, for instance, divine or natural or however you call it, higher law is not the issue anymore. But nevertheless, it's very useful to have these two elements, to have the argument that this organization, like Mary Immaculate, is part of this world, but it's immaculate. It's in a way different from anybody else. If somebody within this national state, in this official function, makes something that for normal people would be a crime, if he does it, he is immaculate. This is a practical argument for such an organization. In a way, however you just have to believe it, in a way also a higher being, this too is very practical to take it over from these ideas from the church, so assumption to heaven. So the state is immaculate and he is assumed to heaven and this is quite a practical basis in order now to make the application to that on the world, to define doctrine regarding legal norms for all inhabitants of the country. And now it comes to a very interesting question. Should anyone have the temerity to reject this? Let him be, what says the state? Does he also say Anathema? So let him be alone. Is this the conclusion the state says? I think you know it's not the answer by the state. So you could also say that once you apply the dogma, the papal infability dogma, as a governmental infability dogma, you can change just some very few worlds, these red parts. It's the same text as the church version. You have the state version. So when he officially defines something in the official procedure, the constitutional law procedure, things like that, whatever norms these are, promised by a resorgimento or whatever the reasoning is, then that therefore such definitions by the state are themselves and not from the consent of the people. Again, not a democratic aspect, irreformable. So then should anyone have the temerity to reject this definition of ours? Let him be Anathema. No, not Anathema, but forced, arrested, expropriated, killed, whatever the consequence is, even though the basis is just faith. So within this chart we have on the bottom here the consequence. If you do not believe in that in these nice pictures, if you do not believe in it, you are not convinced in it, you will be forced to follow them. So it's not a harmonization of faith and reason, but it's enforcement of faith, which is of course a big difference to what was the idea of this dogma for Pope Pius IX. Again, that would not correspond to harmonizing faith and reason. What would have corresponded, and this is the final idea now, if you really do apply this idea of harmonization of faith and rationality to the state, then why not to use these pictures? Then Mary as a symbol, not for the church but for the state, is still an interface. It's not the source of law, but it's an interface between these higher spheres, probably you would not call them divine law anymore, but maybe real law, natural law, rule of law, things like that. But there is something that the state cannot do more than trying to understand and to communicate it with society. So that would be a part of a consistent regime. And if you like to use these beautiful pictures, why not then say just for the sake of rationality, let's say it's immaculate, and let's say it's somehow higher, even though it grounded here on earth, and then you can deduct from top to down these norms, why not, but the final consequence would then not be that the people who reject that they will be punished or forced, but okay, then they will not be one of ours anymore, not more than this. You're invited to believe in this, that could be for many people perhaps a good scheme, a sort of rationalized scheme of ideas that are not that clear for everybody or for all, but why not to use pictures like that, but keeping in mind that it's not more than a community of faith, and that if somebody does not want to adhere, okay, he can go out, he can go out, he must not move out, he must not move to another country or to another address, but he can quit his membership of this organization. That actually would be, you know, one could think about nice on the morning, that would be a good plan for the state, that could be a project, that could be maybe the future of the state, certainly you know. This is not the case today at least, maybe it will be the case some later on, but once it will be realized, then it is, it would be a miracle, and as you know, once you have miracles, you are not only be notified, but once a miracle is there, you will be canonized, so that would be time for St. Paul, Pius IX. Thank you.