Firstly: Because I am a practical Christian to whom love and justice to his brother mean more than dogmatic speculations about whose ultimate truth or untruth no human being can ever have certain knowledge.

The relation to my brother and the unity of the true “catholic” Christendom is to me infinitely mere important than “justification by fide sola.”

As a Christian I have to share the burden of my brother’s wrongness, and that is most heavy when I do not know whether in the end he is not more right than I.

 I hold it to be immoral, in any case entirely unchristian, to put my brother in the wrong (i.e., to call him fool, ass, spiteful, obdurate, etc.) simply because I suppose myself to be in possession of the absolute truth.

Every totalitarian claim gradually isolates itself because it excludes so many people as “defectors, lost, fallen, apostate, heretic,” and so forth.

The totalitarian maneuvers himself into a corner, no matter how large his original following.

I hold all confessionalism to be completely unchristian.

Secondly: Because I am a doctor.

If I possessed the absolute truth I could do nothing further than to press into my patient’s hand a book of devotion or confessional guidance, just what is no longer of any help to him.

When, on the other hand, I discover in his untruth a truth, in his confusion an order, in his lostness something that has been found, then I have helped him.

This requires an incomparably greater self-abnegation and self-surrender for my brother’s sake than if I assessed, correctly from the standpoint of one confession, the motivations of another.

You underestimate the immense number of those of goodwill, but to whom confessionalism blocks the doors.

A Christian has to concern himself, especially if he is a physician of souls, with the spirituality of the reputedly unspiritual (spirit = confessionalism!)

and he can do this only if he speaks their language and certainly not if, in the deterrent way of confessionalism, he sounds the kerygmatic trumpet, hoarse with age.

Whoever talks in today’s world of an absolute and single truth is speaking in an obsolete dialect and not in any way in the language of mankind.

Christianity possesses good tidings from God, but no textbook of a dogma with claim to totality.

Therefore it is hard to understand why God should never have sent more than one message.

Christian modesty in any case strictly forbids assuming that God did not send ei>ayye\ia in other languages, not just in Greek, to other nations.

If we think otherwise our thinking is in the deepest sense unchristian.

The Christian—my idea of Christian—knows no curse formulas; indeed he does not even sanction the curse put on the innocent fig-tree by the rabbi Jesus, nor does he lend his ear to the missionary Paul of Tarsus when he forbids cursing to the Christian and then he himself curses the next moment.

Thirdly: Because I am a man of science.

The Catholic doctrine, as you present it to me so splendidly, is familiar to me to that extent.

I am convinced of its “truth” in so far as it formulates determinable psychological facts, and thus far I accept this truth without further ado.

But where I lack such empirical psychological foundations it does not help me in the least to believe in anything beyond them, for that would not compensate for my missing knowledge; nor could I ever surrender to the self-delusion of knowing something where I merely believe.

I am now nearly seventy years old, but the charisma of belief has never arisen in me.

Perhaps I am too overweening, too conceited; perhaps you are right in thinking that the cosmos circles around the God Jung.

But in any case I have never succeeded in thinking that what I believe, feel, think, and understand is the only and final truth and that I enjoy the unspeakable privilege of God-likeness by being the possessor of the sole truth.

You see that, although I can estimate the charisma of faith and its blessedness, the acceptance of “faith” is impossible for me because it says nothing to me.

You will naturally remonstrate that, after all, I talk about “God.”

I do this with the same right as humanity has from the beginning equated the numinous effects of certain psychological facts with an unknown primal cause called God.

This “cause is Beyond my understanding, and therefore I can say nothing further about it except that I am convinced of the existence of such a cause, and indeed with the same logic by which one may conclude from the disturbance of a planet’s course the existence of a yet unknown heavenly body.

To be sure, I do not believe in the absolute validity of the law of causality, which is why I guard against “positing” God as cause, for by this I would have given him a precise definition.

Such restraint is surely an offense to confessors of the Faith.

But according to the fundamental Christian commandment I must not only bear with and understand my schismatic Protestant brother, but also my brothers in Arabia and India.

They, too, have received strange but no less notable tidings which it is my obligation to understand.

As a European, I am burdened most heavily by my unexpectedly dark brother, who confronts me with his antichristian Neo-Paganism.

This extends far beyond the borders of Germany as the most pernicious schism that has ever beset Christianity.

And though I deny it a thousand times, it is also in me.

One cannot come to terms with this conflict by imputing wrong to someone else and the undoubted right to oneself.

This conflict I can solve first of all only within myself and not in another.  ~Carl Jung, CW 18, Pages 645-647