As part of a symposium on his book Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak explains his motivation and purpose in writing the work. The essay addresses the limitations of democracy and claims for human rights, and points to the traditional teachings of Christian thinkers regarding the political sphere. In particular, the Augustinian doctrine of the Two Cities (the City of God and the City of Man) is relevant to the Christian understanding of politics

Robert Krayriak's Christian Faith and Modern Democracy imprecisely diagnoses a problem in modern rights doctrines. Kraynak conflates the modern notion of autonomous rights with natural rights as traditionally understood in Christian thought. It is still possible to defend the Christian-Aristotelian version of rights rather than let autonomy-based rights lead even Christians to licentiousness or despotism.

Robert Kraynak has identified profound tensions in the Christian-democratic synthesis that has been taken for granted for the past century. The best way to address what he identifies as problems associated with democracy, human rights, autonomy and the like, is not to abandon their usage but to clarify their deepest meaning. To do so requires a work of education involving nothing less than a full-scale renovation of our public philosophy. A Christian democratic theory, informed by such thinkers as Yves Simon and Pope John Paul II, would provide the framework for such a renovation.

Robert Kraynak's Christian Faith and Modern Democracy represents a frontal assault on the far-reaching developnnent in Catholic social teaching that George Weigel terms the Catholic human rights revolution. But neither the major theorists whose work laid the intellectual groundwork for the Catholic human rights revolution nor the Churches social magisterium have ever asserted that democracy represents the only legitimate form of government. Kraynak's critique of the Catholic human rights revolution is inextricably intertwined with his treatment of "liberal democracy" a treatment that I think is in important respects problematic.

Robert Krayrnak's arguments regarding the inadequacy of liberalism's view of man and society are forceful and persuasive. Less persuasive is his argument regarding the inherent conflict between Christianity and democracy. Kraynak's argument is grounded in a reading of intellectual history that, contrary to his own stated purpose, fails to do full justice to the distinaiveness of the Christian tradition and its developing understanding of the limited, yet invariably moral, nature of the state.

Those who take the possibility of Christian politics seriously will be impressed by Robert Kraynak's bold challenge to the personalist tradition in Christian thought and by his call for a return to the prudential tradition of Augustine's two cities. Kraynak's political thinking is hampered by the very strengths of the prudential tradition: the elemental distinctions between the two cities; between temporal and spiritual categories; and between the pre-modern and modern eras.

Robert Kraynak argues that Christian thought for the past century has seen democracy and Christianity as highly compatible, but that the actual tradition of Christian ethical and political thinking has been suspicious and even hostile towards the democratic form of government as it appeared in the West But the Christian tradition has not based the dignity of the human person principally on man's freedom; rather it founds human dignity on man's special status in the universe because of his spiritual soul and his obedience to the divine providence governing him tov/ards his God-given final end. The emphasis has been not on the rights of man, founded on his freedom, but rather on his obligations toward God and his fellow humans. Freedom has a considerably stronger role in the Christian tradition, both religious and philosophical with respect to the grounding of human dignity, than Kraynak seems willing to recognize.

While Robert Kraynak has articulated a powerful critique of the way in which contemporary Christian personalism is used to bolster modern liberal democracy and Kantian rights, there is a way to understand the emphasis on the dignity of the human person in contemporary Catholic social thought that avoids the problems that Kraynak highlights. It is possible to interpret the place of the person in Catholic social teaching in a manner that steers clear of the undesirable consequences that Kraynak seems to think ore inherent in emphasizing the human person, dignity and rights.

Robert Kraynak's critique of Christianity's embrace of liberal democracy is powerful but flawed by a subtle ambiguity. His argument is ambiguous insofar as it tends to obscure the fundamental "openness" of' "all flesh," including the state, the economy, society and the culture—as part of what John Paul calls "the entire reality of man"—to the "supernatural order of charity, holiness and grace." It is the task of the Church to bring to the culture, and therefore to all of its political, economic and legal institutions, an authentic interpretation of "the entire reality of man."

At the conclusion of a symposium on his book Christian Faith and Modern Democracy, Robert Kraynak recapitulates his argument regarding the tension between Christianity and modern liberal democracy. He acknowledges the significance of Christian personalism as a challenge to the thesis of his book, but replies that Christian personalism is ultimately self-contradictory as basis for politics

Catholic social sciences and sociology have long struggled with the challenges of institutionalizing themselves in the professions and in higher education. It is suggested here that a satisfying strategy for addressing this challenge is found in the work of Edward A,Tiryakian, Particularly those that address hegemonic theory schools and the roles they played in the development of American and European Sociology. The Tiryokian variant of a theory school is explicated here and followed by a discussion, and suggestion for next steps to be taken in order to advance the intellectual and institutional changes required to establish a theory school and move the mission of Catholic social sciences forward.

The promise of salvatior) is one of communion in Christ Modern psychology recognizes that the goal of human development is integration of the person, but falls short because it does not tie that integration to the Beatitude. For example, theoretical psychology fails to speculate about what that integrity would mean in terms of moral judgments and the behavior of the individual. On the other hand, the Magisterium, because it is Christocentric, offers a perspective of human development that is consistent with human experience and completes what is still absent in modern social science, thereby bringing extraordinary meaning to what the social sciences have observed and providing a means for applying these observations to our lives. This perspective is centered in the hope that faith and grace will bring us integration and a share in the life of the Trinity. These Magisterial teachings with respect to human development are reviewed in this paper. Because, in the end, the person is an integrity as social scientists we must reconsider the fragmented state of the social sciences to bring a better understanding of who we ore in Christ

Contemporary political science, which is dominated by a behavioralist paradigm, has made many contributions to our knowledge of political institutions and behavior, is limited by its commitment to positivism. It needs to return to the study of virtue, to an appreciation for natural law, and to develop a new paradigm to organize and unify the study of political phenomena.

Integralism is viewed as an incipient paradigm that encompasses the social sciences. Drawing from the works of Randall Collins and Edward A. Tiryakian, the criteria of a successful school of thought in the social sciences and the requirements for its development are considered. Seven projects necessary for establishing integralism as a successful school are identified.

The theology of community in the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar envisages community as one of the four tensions in man's understanding of himself These are respectively: man-world; male-female; body-spirit and individual-community. With the coming of Christ the community dimension is transformed by the presence of the Church and a real theology of the individual develops. The individual becomes a unique "bearer of the Church" irreplaceably part of the mission to the world. The ecclesial existence of the individual derives from the continuing roles of Peter, Mary John, Paul and the "multitude,"in this person.The Church accompanies and converts the world through training strong Christian personalities who are at home in the Church community and who speak and suffer in society

John Paul ll's challenge to the culture of death contributes a thoroughgoing exposé of the linguistic distortions constructed by today's anti-life propagandists, especially the sanitized medical euphemisms designed to cleanse the sordid business of medicalized killing and the appropriation of legal verbiage and elitist, relativistic ideologies as a foundation for the denial of fundamental rights to individuals rendered expendable. The Holy Father's use of sometimes graphic, but always authentic, language in calling things by their proper name furnishes a compelling mode of discourse for exposing the vocabulary of duplicity powering the death culture, and replacing it with a life-affirming lexicon of intrinsic dignity and worth.

At any given point in time much of the popular opinion in society concerning ethical behavior is conditioned by the prevailing view of the natural order. In the second half of the twentieth century, western society has been dominated by the view that practically everything is random and unpredictable, and, therefore, independent of everything else. A wide range of ethical behavior is tolerated because the set of possible relevant consequences of a given activity is assumed to be quite narrow. The uncovering of "pseudorandom" phenomena suggests that the current "laissez faire" humanistic ethics may soon be eclipsed by a rejuvenated classical ethics based on deterministic processes.

The Dominican theologian Francisco de Vitoria recognized civil power as originating from natural law, in contrast to ecclesiastical authority which derives from divine, positive law. Francisco Suarez, S.J., recognizes a distinction between the temporal and ecclesiastical orders. St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., like Suarez, distinguishes the authority of the Popes and Bishops from the authority enjoyed by secular rulers. He also elaborates on the concept of the "indirect" temporal authority of the Pope.