This article relates the Integral sociology perspective of Pitirim A. Sorokin to the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding faith and science. It begins with a summary of the theoretical structure of Integralism and proceed to a discussion of its historical roots in Russian Christian philosophy, especially the tradition ofIntuitivism. I conclude that although Integralism is generally consistent with Catholic doctrine, it does not deal with certain fundamentals of the Catholic perspective. Moreover, Sorokin’s formulation seems to imply the possibility of both Christian and non-Christian, theistic and non-theistic variants of Integralism.Nevertheless, Catholic social scientists may find the integralist perspective appealing and useful, especially as compared with other contemporary paradigms.

Pitirim A. Sorokin advocated an “integral” system of truth which would incorporate religious ideas in the epistemology and ontology of the social sciences. Several foundational ideas for this integral perspective are in the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas: (1) the view that truth is derived from the three sources of faith, reason, and the senses; (2) the last end of human beings, which is happiness; (3) virtue and vice; (4) free will, through which individuals exercise the capacity to choose. These ideas can be incorporated within the existing frame of reference of the social sciences. When appropriate, they can be formulated as value premises, concepts, propositions, and operational definitions. The writings of Sorokin and Aquinas are considered as foundational sources for the development of a comprehensive integral tradition in the social sciences.

Integralism is simultaneously an epistemology, psychology, sociology of change and theory of history. As used here it provides the theoretical underpinnings of Sorokin’s general sociology and later works on altruism and social reconstruction. This paper explores the evolution of the concept from Social and Cultural Dynamics through his later works on the crisis of modernity, and the studies of social reconstruction at the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism. The results of this evolving chain of analysis was an integrated conceptual statement on the nature of humanness, knowledge, conflict resolution, altruism, and prosocial forms of human organization. Sorokin’s model along with selected themes from the writings of John Paul II sharpens their shared insights into the resolution of social problems.

The papers in this symposium were delivered at the Society of Catholic Social Scientists’ spring conference of the same name on April 17, 1999 at Notre Dame Law School. The Society in its history has given some particular attention to this issue, having sent letters to all the members of Congress opposing the early Clinton Administration initiative to let known homosexuals into the military and to all the U.S. bishops pointing out the serious problems with the homosexual-specific ministries which have sprung up in various dioceses. The latter letter gained attention from a couple of national publications and generated numerous requests for copies. The fact that we have given this focus to the issue of homosexuality accords with the Society’s intention to especially stress family issues. We wish to try to disseminate these papers beyond the confines of this journal, if possible.

Discusses Catholic teaching about homosexuality. Explains the philosophical rationale for that teaching. Argues that homosexual activity is wrong, along with all other non-marital sexual activity, because it undermines the goods of marriage.

Discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s well-known removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Argues that this was done because ofpolitical pressures, the overall influence of the sexual revolution, and problematic humanitarian motives. Asserts that now homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists.All three great pioneers of psychiatry—Freud, Jung and Adler—saw homosexuality as disordered. Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.Were these three great pioneers just reflecting the ignorance and prejudice of their times? Is this radical shift due to our modern-day enlightened, sophisticatedattitude? Has there been any new research to account for this shift of opinion?Submits that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift. Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective.Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right.”

Presents Catholic teaching on homosexuality and discusses the nature and growth of Courage, an orthodox Catholic support organization for people with same-sex attraction to help them to live chaste lives. Also discusses Encourage, a similar group for parents whose children have embraced the “gay lifestyle.”

Argues that same-sex “marriage” is a logical and practical impossibility and has serious implications for both other aspects of family law and the respect for human life and children in our culture. Asserts that the movement for same-sex “marriage” is a logical outgrowth of our culture’s separation of sex and procreation. Argues that the basis for opposition to this movement may be the residual reservoir of traditional understanding about marriage in the American public.

Is man fundamentally a moral and religious being, as Pope Leo XIII insists in Rerum Novarum? Or, is man a being fundamentally driven by a desire for material gain, as is asserted by Thomas Hobbes and James Madison? This article argues that Leo’s view of humanity is the more accurate one, and that implies problems for the underlying ideas of the American regime. Rather than seeing religion as too weak to restrain man’s desire for gain, as does Madison (and the American Republic), Leo understood that religion can be a powerful force for drawing society to a high level of moral rectitude.

Beginning with an examination of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Lochner v. New York, this article examines the necessity of natural law jurisprudence for a proper sort of constitutional interpretation. Natural law jurisprudence, properly understood and applied, would not be a cover for judges to read their own preferences into the Constitution.

Dr. Shankman’s paper is in conflict with Dr. Holloway’s paper on the most important issue raised by the two of them. Dr. Holloway interprets Madison, thefather of the Constitution, to teach that man is nothing more than a clever animal, and that man by reason can know only things that relate to his bodily desires and his longing for economic well-being. Dr. Shankman, on the other hand, asserts that the founders based the Constitution on natural law principles–immutable moral principles of right and wrong that can be known by the light of human reason. It appears that the reader is forced to choose between Dr. Holloway’s understanding of the founding and Dr. Shankman’s.

Holloway and Shankman ask the right questions in trying to figure out whether and to the extent to which Catholic social thought is compatible with the American regime. By directing our attention to fundamental disagreements between the Church and modern political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke, Hollowayand Shankman render a great service. In protraying Madison as overly Hobbesian, though, Holloway implies that the tension between Catholic social thought and the Federalist is more pronounced than it actually is. And in endorsing a common law approach to judging, Shankman ignores the serious reservcations against such an approach voiced by Madison, other Founders and case law.

In three encyclicals, Pius XI denounces the abuses of totalitarian regimes: fascism, national socialism, and communism. The Pope argues that the motor of the human rights abuses operative in each regime is idolatry. Totalitarian movements have placed respectively the state, race, and class in the place of God. The prophetic defense of the rights of the persecuted entails a theological critique of the idolatrous substitutes for God and of the counterfeit Christianity fabricated by totalitarian movements.

Developmental psychology and personality theory offer explanations of the development of autonomy that focus primarily on how the person becomes capable of acting on his or her own. Unlike developmental theory, however, the Church finds the key to development not in self-centeredness, but in submission and docility.In traditional Catholic thought, man finds freedom in the ultimate intimacy, that of union with the Trinity. Our reason serves our freedom, supporting our growing capacity to discern God’s will and surrender to it, as well as the growing capacity to discern God’s will in submissive service to loved ones. Cooperation withGod’s free gift of grace enables this development. The Holy Father distinguishes this autonomy from heteronomy, which is obedience to laws that are unrelated to human good. Moral autonomy, on the other hand, represents a “participated theonomy” or our willful participation in Divine Providence, through the right use of natural reason and submission to divine revelation. Moral autonomy defines human freedom.

At the end of February 2000 the Pope fulfilled a longed-for dream in his visit to Egypt, culminating in his ascent to Mount Sinai. Here the Pope displays once again a perfect intertwining of reason and faith, philosophy and theology. This paper delves into the metaphysical ground of social ethics, as Fr. de Torre did in the 1977 book, The Roots of Society.

Electronic monitoring is an extremely controversial area and one of growing public debate. Clearly monitoring can serve legitimate business purposes. However, it also has the potential to seriously erode the human dignity and privacy of those being monitored. The issue of electronic monitoring is examined by analyzing the extent and nature of monitoring of employees and customers, along with the legal and moral issues raised in monitoring.

The case law of the United States Supreme Court has moved beyond a hostility to a public role for religion. Yet, the Court seems also committed to requiring a secular public life—to require the government to act as if there is no God. This article examines in detail how the Court has advanced this secular agenda in two areas of law: adjudication of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the area of public morality.