As promised, the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) released a document entitled “Dignitas Infinita” (DI), which translates as “Infinite Dignity.” This document, according to Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández, the Prefect of the DDF, has been in the works for 5 years. Now, it would’ve been nice to have gotten this 5 years ago, but alas, we got it today.
In this post, I will go about analyzing the document. I am not writing an attack or defense of the document, though at times I will applaud and critique it. I hope you get something out of this. The format here will be a chronological overview, so I will be going section by section.
DI begins with a discussion on the ontological dignity of every human person, regardless of their circumstances. “Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter.”1 The document then notes that the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights “reaffirmed authoritatively” the dignity and value of all men and women. Now, at first I winced, because I am not the biggest fan of the UN and I am not at all confident that it is in the best interests of Catholics to cooperate with it, but I do want to lend some credit to the DDF here. The reason they refer to the declaration as “authoritative” and emphasize it is because it does hold weight to most nations and people today, and was passed with 48 yes votes out of 58, with none against. Non-Christians tend to recognize the declaration as having authority, so the Church is appealing to them here. It is not saying that we ultimately source human dignity from this declaration, or that it has authority over the Church in any way. Fernandez writes that the Church is using its 75th anniversary as a an occassion to speak on human dignity. Though I have many problems with the UN, I do not think it is imprudent per se for the Church to use this globally recognized document and its anniversary to advance its view of human dignity, which, as we will see, conflicts with the modern understanding.
Next, the document makes the claim that, “From the start of her mission and propelled by the Gospel, the Church has striven to affirm human freedom and promote the rights of all people. [4] In recent times, thanks to the voices of the Pontiffs, the Church has made a deliberate effort to formulate this commitment in more explicit terms through a renewed call to acknowledge the fundamental dignity inherent in every person.”2
Is this true? Has the Church always promoted the rights of “all people?” Has it affirmed “human freedom?” Well, yes and no. The Church has not always promoted the rights and freedoms of people as laid out in the UN’s declaration or in the modern liberal democratic sense. The freedom the Church proclaims is not freedom from worldly oppression, but freedom from sin.3 Further, the Bible does not promise liberation from earthly slavery or from inequalities, but liberation from sin and death. Slaves, indeed, are told to be obedient and to their masters.4 This does not mean that the Church did not promote greater human dignity, though. Masters were commanded to treat their slaves with respect and mercy,5 and Christians were commanded to treat one another without partiality.6 Christ clearly taught that the naked, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, and those in prison, were to be ministered to and loved.7 So, it is true that the Church has always affirmed the dignity of all men and women regardless of station, but it is not true that the Church has always advocated for modern “equal rights” and “freedom” in the modern political sense. The document references Leo XIII and all the popes after him who wrote on social issues in footnote 4, and so I believe that this section ought to be read in that light. Finally, as we will see, later parts of the document clarify that human freedom and dignity must necessarily be freed by Christ, and that neither can reach its fullness without cooperation with God’s plan.8
The introductory section ends by laying out Pope Francis’ views on human dignity and fraternity in ¶ 6. Fernandez writes that “From this perspective, Pope Francis’ encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, constitutes a kind of ‘Magna Carta’ of our contemporary tasks to protect and promote human dignity.” I found this to be a very exaggerated statement and, frankly, presentist (as if other popes had nothing to say), but the phrase “contemporary tasks” rescues this statement from complete absurdity. Maybe I will return to Fratelli Tutti in another post.
The next section is entitled “A Fundamental Clarification.” Fernandez begins by acknowledging that human dignity is something that most people agree on today. However, the document says that the phrase “‘the dignity of the human person’ risks lending itself to a variety of interpretations that can yield potential ambiguities and ‘contradictions that lead us to wonder whether the equal dignity of all human beings […] is truly recognized, respected, protected and promoted in every situation.’”9 For all the talk of human dignity and equality today, it is clear that much is lacking, and that the modern world actually falls quite short, since it is often misguided in its pursuit of human dignity. Correcting these errors and clarifying what human dignity really means is the aim of DI.
Fernandez then brings up this idea of “a fourfold distinction of the concept of dignity: ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity, and existential dignity” in ¶ 7. Ontological dignity is that dignity we have just as a result of existing; we are created and loved by God. Moral dignity refers to how we conduct ourselves and make use of the freedom we’ve been given (the freedom that comes with being a human capable of making decisions, not just political “freedom”). One can act against the dignity of others and themselves in this regard, but even when a person acts in an undignified way, they have not totally lost their ontological dignity, even if it becomes obscured. Social dignity refers to someone’s standing or conditions in terms of material well-being, and existential dignity seems to refer to that dignity that a person feels they have as a result of their experience of life and the struggles they may face. Fernandez gives the example of people who “struggle to live with peace, joy, and hope” as a result of “serious illnesses, violent family environments, pathological addictions, and other hardships…”10
I am curious whether this distinction is one that can be found in the Church’s history. Did Fernandez make this up, or does this have a grounding in Tradition? he does not cite any source whatsoever for this section so it is not implausible that he made it up, in which case this needs to be scrutinized to ensure compatibility with prior Church teaching.
I must also ask how this affects the Church’s teachings on hell and eternal damnation. It is a matter of dogma that hell exists and that people will go there. If man has an ontological dignity that is present regardless of the circumstances, does this include when he is in mortal sin, or, even worse, if he dies in a state of mortal sin? Do those circumstances strip him of his ontological dignity, since he has severed ties with God and will go to hell?11 It would seem that the teaching of “infinite dignity” may conflict with the dogma of hell, although I can see one, and only one, path out: annihilationism. Ontological dignity would imply that non-existence is the only way that a human has no dignity. Again, this needs to be scrutinized further.
Fernandez then lays out a sort of “short history of human dignity,” beginning briefly with ancient thought and a reference to Cicero12 and then examining Old and New Testament passages that relate to human dignity. I have one issue. In ¶ 12, he writes the following: “For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment.” This does not seem compatible with Church teaching. The Church does not teach that the single criterion of judgement is one’s good works, though it is certainly one of them. Furthermore, if Fernandez is also suggesting that one’s good works are all that counts “regardless of the ties of religion” then he is espousing complete error. Now, it is possible that this “ties to blood or religion” is in reference to the recipient of a good work, but it seems more likely that it applies to the person doing the good work. I can’t say with complete certainty, but this sentence is highly confusing.
He then briefly notes the way the Church has progressed in terms of its thought on human dignity, and in a note says “For example, see Clement of Rome, 1 Clem. 33, 4f: PG 1, 273; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Aut. I, 4: PG 6, 1029; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 42, 5-6: PG 8, 1145; Ibid., VI, 72, 2: PG 9, 293; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. Haer. V, 6, 1: PG 7, 1137-1138; Origen, De princ. III, 6, 1: PG 11, 333; Augustine, De Gen. ad litt. VI, 12: PL 34, 348; De Trinitate XIV, 8, 11: PL 42, 1044-1045.”
After reaching the modern era, Fernandez states that, “The Church’s Magisterium progressively developed an ever-greater understanding of the meaning of human dignity, along with its demands and consequences, until it arrived at the recognition that the dignity of every human being prevails beyond all circumstances.”13 I am a bit wary of this language, frankly. It is not unreasonable to say the Church could develop and enrich its teaching in matters of faith and morals. But I am a bit unsure about asserting that we’ve “arrived” at the fullest and best understanding of human dignity today, as opposed to the Church of the past which Fernandez implies did not recognize people’s dignity as fully as it ought to have. Call me a skeptic, but I doubt the pre-1960s Church just had an incomplete and wanting understanding of human dignity, while we enlightened post-1960 moderns have finally figured it out. Maybe I am wrong here, but this is something I do not feel as confident about.
Fernandez then writes on the imago Dei and how the Incarnation and ministry of Christ changed our understanding of human dignity. He writes,
By proclaiming that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor, the humble, the despised, and those who suffer in body and spirit; by healing all sorts of illnesses and infirmities, even the most dramatic ones, such as leprosy; by affirming that whatever is done to these individuals is also done to him because he is present in them: in all these ways, Jesus brought the great novelty of recognizing the dignity of every person, especially those who were considered “unworthy.” This new principle in human history—which emphasizes that individuals are even more “worthy” of our respect and love when they are weak, scorned, or suffering, even to the point of losing the human “figure”—has changed the face of the world.14
As Christians, we must not forget these principles. Indeed, we must be cautious not to lose sight of them or to take them for granted, as it has become clear that without Christian morals and ethics, the world quickly turns to the most abominable practices.15 This is the theme of DI later.
I also like this line:
Consequently, the Church believes and affirms that all human beings—created in the image and likeness of God and recreated in the Son, who became man, was crucified, and rose again—are called to grow under the action of the Holy Spirit to reflect the glory of the Father in that same image and to share in eternal life (cf. Jn. 10:15-16, 17:22-24; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:3-14).
This is very important to keep in mind; Christians are not to be idle, but are to grow in dignity as humans by recognizing the way Christ has saved us and how the Holy Spirit dwells within us.
We hear next that we are called to use our dignity and freedom for good; nothing disagreeable here.
In ¶ 24, Fernandez rejects the idea that dignity only comes with being a “person” capable of “reason” as this denies dignity to the unborn, the elderly, and those with mental disabilities; we have dignity as humans, not as rational and conscious agents.
In the next paragraph we read one of the more forceful and anti-modern pronouncements of the document:
the concept of human dignity is also occasionally misused to justify an arbitrary proliferation of new rights, many of which are at odds with those originally defined and often are set in opposition to the fundamental right to life. It is as if the ability to express and realize every individual preference or subjective desire should be guaranteed. This perspective identifies dignity with an isolated and individualistic freedom that claims to impose particular subjective desires and propensities as “rights” to be guaranteed and funded by the community. However, human dignity cannot be based on merely individualistic standards, nor can it be identified with the psychophysical well-being of the individual. Rather, the defense of human dignity is based on the constitutive demands of human nature, which do not depend on individual arbitrariness or social recognition. Therefore, the duties that stem from recognizing the dignity of the other and the corresponding rights that flow from it have a concrete and objective content based on our shared human nature. Without such an objective basis, the concept of dignity becomes de facto subject to the most diverse forms of arbitrariness and power interests.16
DI goes on to reject the “individualistic freedom that claims to create its own values regardless of the objective norms of the good and of our relationship with other living beings.”17 Again, making reference to “objective norms of the good” is a much needed rebuke of today’s tendency towards relativism. What DI says next though is one of the lines that surprised and pleased me most: “Indeed, there is an ever-growing risk of reducing human dignity to the ability to determine one’s identity and future independently of others, without regard for one’s membership in the human community.” Is this not what the current LGBT movement is up to? Reducing their dignity to a self-made identity, and forcing others to recognize it? Further, the idea that we actually have an inherent identity and future that is linked to the human community we are in is quite important (and I would argue this applies to specific communities like our nation, family, etc.).
In ¶ 28, DI comments on the “the goodness of other creatures.” I love nature, I love animals, so what’s to hate here? I know it’s popular to rag on Francis for his writings on the environment and such, and while I do not like the Un-speak, I really do believe in conservation, sustainability, and care for creation. I don’t think you necessarily need to believe in climate change as it is taught by global organizations, but I think caring for the Earth is common sense.
¶ 29 begins the section entitled “Freeing the Human Person from Negative Influences in the Moral and Social Spheres.”
This paragraph and those that follow are key. Fernandez writes that:
“These fundamental prerequisites [all that he just said about dignity], however necessary, are not enough to guarantee a person’s growth consistent with his or her dignity. While ‘God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions,’ with a view to the good, our free will often prefers evil over good. Thus, human freedom, in its turn, needs to be freed.”18
Earlier in ¶ 7 he says that due to our ability to lose moral dignity, “we must work with all our might so that all those who have done evil may repent and convert.” I certainly agree with that, although I must again ask: do we ask people to repent and convert because their moral dignity is at stake, or because their immortal soul is at risk of going to hell?
It is Christ who allows human freedom to become truly free; this is completely in line with what I discussed earlier about the Church emphasizing primarily the freedom that comes with being a Christian, and not with some liberal democratic understanding of freedom.
He continues to write that, “it would be a grave error to think that by distancing ourselves from God and his assistance, we could somehow be freer and thus feel more dignified. Instead, detached from the Creator, our freedom can only weaken and become obscured.”19 I couldn’t agree more with this.
¶ 31 is a bit long, but to summarize, it says that our freedom is not abstract and without context, but occurs in some specific “economic, social, juridic, political and cultural order.” Additionally, Francis is quoted in Fratelli tutti as saying that while some people do not require a proactive State, since they are materially well off, others could not have freedom without a proactive State (the disabled, for instance). Of note, I agree with Francis when he says, “If a society is governed primarily by the criteria of market freedom and efficiency, there is no place for such persons, and fraternity will remain just another vague ideal.” Catholics do not have to oppose freedom in the market or efficiency per se, but neither the free market nor efficiency can be the primary criteria by which we judge the economic, social, and political order; the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity come before the free market.
This section ends by asseting, “One must, moreover, reaffirm the fundamental right to religious freedom.” I am not so sure about the Church’s changed stance on religious liberty as a fundamental right. I agree that supporting religious freedom is absolutely the most prudent way to bolster and protect the Church in the modern world, but supporting religious freedom in and of itself as a fundamental human right seems at odds with error 15 in the Syllabus of Errors of Bl. Pius IX. No. 15, which to be clear, is being CONDEMNED as an error, reads:
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
But the Church’s shift in teaching on this matter is one that deserves greater treatment.
The next section treats “Some Grave Violations of Human Dignity.”
Among them, it lists poverty and wealth inequality, war, the travail of migrants, human trafficking, sexual abuse, violence against women, abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia and assisted suicide, the marginalization of the disabled, gender theory, sex change, and digital violence.
¶ 34 mentions the death penalty, and says that it “violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances.” It should be noted that the Catechism of the Catholic Church was changed by Pope Francis in 2018 to condemn more strongly the death penalty. CCC 2267 reads:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,68 and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
I have heard it said that this is a teaching I must assent to. I cannot in good conscience say that I fully do, as I have many reservations and difficulties with it that go beyond mere ideological priorities. Many try to spin this as only applying to today, and not to the past, but I am not satisfied by this reading. The CCC and DI clearly suggest that the death penalty is, by default, an assault on human dignity and that it ought never to be practiced, “regardless of the circumstances.” Yet, God commands the death penalty in the Old Testament. Can God command that which is evil, or that which is unjust? The Church has also always upheld the death penalty until after Pope St. John Paul II, and even then he allowed it, and only suggested it be avoided on prudential grounds, and not with a claim that it is always against human dignity.20
But we must move on.
First, war. DI reads, “Pope Francis underscores [opposition to war] by stating, ‘We can no longer think of war as a solution because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war!’”21 I find this to be quite lacking. Just war theory was never about saying war was ideal, but that some was is more just than others, and that, in fact, it is actually sometimes just to go to war. Downplaying the Church’s rich tradition and teaching on war in favor of this modernist, pacifistic stance is disappointing. Even Vatican II’s pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes affirms just war theory when it says:
As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care.22
Next, DI’s comments on migrants. I think if we view the document as commenting specifically on refugees and migrants fleeing an actively unlivable situation, it is basically fine. But I fear that the Church fails to make that distinction sometimes. No one has a right to be received into another country just because they want something better than what they have. But I do agree that governments have an obligation to assist those who are fleeing active war or persecution or some disaster which forces them to leave. If your house gets blown up by a drone or the government is trying to round you up and kill you, I think you have a right to flee and be protected. If your home country is functional but maybe not as good as the country next door, I don’t think you have any right to be received, much less provided for. So, if we are speaking of migrants in the sense of those who simply cannot continue to dwell in their home, then I think yes, absolutely, it is good to receive them and provide for them.
I think we all agree sexual abuse and human trafficking are bad.
Violence against women is also bad, but I disagree that it constitutes violence for women to not have equality in the careers they can pursue. While it may be prudent and good for women to generally be given equality in this regard, I can think of one area where women absolutely should not have equality: military service. I am still holding the line that women ought not to be allowed to serve in combat roles, not only for practical reasons, but also in principle. A country that is willing to send its women to the battlefield is one that has fallen. The violence against women section also condemns femicide and polygamy. I suspect the condemnation of polygamy being situated in this section has to do with the way polygamy manifests itself globally, even though it is far different here in the West.
I am very thankful for what DI says about abortion. Any so-called Catholic who continues to support abortion at this point (and it’s been this way since the Didache, by the way) is in grave sin. Catholics MUST stand against abortion, without compromise.
The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior, and even in law itself is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.23
DI’s condemnation of surrogacy is also timely. Catholics who cheer on surrogacy, especially when it is done by “conservatives,” have lost the plot, and must repent. This is an area where Pope Francis has actually been really solid, as the document notes, and I commend him for that.
The Church also takes a stand against the practice of surrogacy, through which the immensely worthy child becomes a mere object.24
I don’t think I need to comment on discrimination of people with disabilities. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are big problems, and DI just reaffirms what the Church has taught for a long time.
Fernandez devotes several paragraphs to Gender theory. ¶ 55 basically says that gay people have dignity too, and shouldn’t be imprisoned or killed just because of their disordered affection. Pope Francis is quoted in ¶ 56 as saying, “Regrettably, in recent decades, attempts have been made to introduce new rights that are neither fully consistent with those originally defined nor always acceptable. They have led to instances of ideological colonization, in which gender theory plays a central role; the latter is extremely dangerous since it cancels differences in its claim to make everyone equal.” The ideological colonization language I find to be strange, but Francis condemns the idea of making everyone equal in this regard. That’s definitely controversial.
DI reminds us that we are body and soul, and that gender theory is an attempt to make ourselves gods.25 ¶ 58 forcefully asserts, “Another prominent aspect of gender theory is that it intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference. This foundational difference is not only the greatest imaginable difference but is also the most beautiful and most powerful of them.” Very strong language that I was glad to read.
Furthermore, DI asserts, “all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected: ‘We cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore.’ Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity.” The document’s affirmation that masculinity and femininity are prior to our decisions and experiences is extremely important, as it maintains that masculinity and femininity are actually metaphysical ideas and not just the result of social conditions or choices. Not only are men and women biological fact, they are metaphysical fact.
Following this logic, DI condemns sex change. It says, “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.”26 Notice the inclusion of the words “as a rule.” Not “usually,” not “often,” but “as a rule".” Now, I think it could’ve been even better if it said “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, threatens…” instead of “risks threatening” but this is not a major flaw, as it still clearly condemns sex-changes, and denies the logic behind them.
When it comes to the final issue, digital dangers, it is sufficient to quote Pope Francis on the matter as the document does:
“it is not healthy to confuse communication with mere virtual contact. Indeed, ‘the digital environment is also one of loneliness, manipulation, exploitation, and violence, even to the extreme case of the ‘dark web.’ Digital media can expose people to the risk of addiction, isolation, and gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking the development of authentic interpersonal relationships. New forms of violence are spreading through social media, for example, cyberbullying. The internet is also a channel for spreading pornography and the exploitation of persons for sexual purposes or through gambling.’”
I would like to explore a bit more about material the Church has put out in regards to digital dangers in a later article. On a more positive note (maybe), the document again quotes Francis:
“In today’s globalized world, ‘the media can help us to feel closer to one another, creating a sense of the unity of the human family which in turn can inspire solidarity and serious efforts to ensure a more dignified life for all. […] The media can help us greatly in this, especially nowadays, when the networks of human communication have made unprecedented advances. The internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity. This is something truly good, a gift from God.’ We need constantly to ensure that present-day forms of communication are in fact guiding us to generous encounter with others, to honest pursuit of the whole truth, to service, to closeness to the underprivileged and to the promotion of the common good.”
I do think that it is necessary even for the most ardent opponents of modern technology to recognize some of the ways that is has had a positive impact, even if that impact is outweighed by the negative impact. I do not know if it’s right to say modern communication is actually guiding us to honest pursuit of the truth and to the promotion of the common good, but in theory it could.
The document concludes,
The Church, with the present Declaration, ardently urges that respect for the dignity of the human person beyond all circumstances be placed at the center of the commitment to the common good and at the center of every legal system. Indeed, respect for the dignity of each person is the indispensable basis for the existence of any society that claims to be founded on just law and not on the force of power. Acknowledging human dignity forms the basis for upholding fundamental human rights, which precede and ground all civic coexistence.
Each individual and also every human community is responsible for the concrete and actual realization of human dignity. Meanwhile, it is incumbent on States not only to protect human dignity but also to guarantee the conditions necessary for it to flourish in the integral promotion of the human person: “In political activity, we should remember that ‘appearances notwithstanding, every person is immensely holy and deserves our love and dedication.’”27
I can’t say I believe that upholding “human rights” (if those genuinely exist) is the basis and grounding for all civic coexistence, but, nevertheless, I do believe that respect for dignity and the exercise of just law is extremely important. I also agree that it is fundamentally Catholic to love all people, but I am not so sure that the saying “every person is immensely holy” is true. Wicked, immoral, unholy people exist who do abominable things. Some people will go to hell because they are unholy; they are steeped in sin. This is not to say anyone is beyond redemption, but let’s cut the soft talk and listen to St. Paul when he writes, for instance, that:
the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.28
Or when he writes:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.29
Anyhow, that’s the end of my analysis.
Some final remarks:
This document is not nearly as bad as some of the others that have come out of this pontificate (Traditiones Custodes and Fiducia Supplicans, for instance). In fact, in many areas, it is perfectly orthodox and welcome. But why should we even act like this is an achievement? Why are we all jumping up and down over Church authorities repeating some basic and long-standing facts like “euthanasia, abortion, and gender theory are bad”? Isn’t this the most basic expectation we could possibly have, that our Church proclaim orthodoxy and truth?
Further, though this document has some great moments, it also has its moments of ambiguity and questionable teaching, which I have highlighted to the best of my ability.
I suppose we will see where things continue to go with this pontificate. For now, Dignitas Infinita seems to at least be throwing the progressives into a fury, and has generated many secular headlines proclaiming the Church has again condemned major progressive beliefs and practices.30
Dignitas Infinita ¶ 1
¶ 3
Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (NRSVCE).
Ephesians 6:5, “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;” (NRSVCE).
Ephesians 6:9, “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him” (NRSVCE).
See James 2:1-13.
See Matthew 25:31-46.
DI ¶ 29
¶ 7
¶ 7.
CCC 1035: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
“But it is essential to every inquiry about duty that we keep before our eyes how far superior man is by nature to cattle and other beasts […] And if we will only bear in mind the superiority and dignity of our nature, we shall realize how wrong it is to abandon ourselves to excess and to live in luxury and voluptuousness, and how right it is to live in thrift, self-denial, simplicity, and sobriety” (Id., On Duties, tr. W. Miller, Loeb Classical Library 30, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1913, 107-109).
DI ¶ 16
¶ 19
I am thinking here of abortion, euthanasia, polygamy, surrogacy, genocide, and the like, which this document touches on.
DI ¶ 25
¶ 26
¶ 29
¶ 30
DI ¶ 39
Gaudium et Spes ¶ 79
DI ¶ 47
¶ 48
¶ 57
¶ 60
¶ 64 & 65
1 Timothy 1:9-11
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
See comments by James Martin’s organization Outreach, as well as these New York Times, Reuters, and Washington Post articles.
I have not finished reading all the way through yet, however thank you for addressing and answering my questions. It makes me understand your note the other day much better and helps with my own confusion over the document.
Not a Catholic, but I enjoyed this quite a bit. Given the enormous historical role played by her it should be well-meet to say that the Catholic Church serves as a significant source of (continued) vitality for the modern "West," so that to some degree "As Rome goes, so goes the West." Accordingly, Rome bearing some teeth toward the great idols of modernity is appreciated. I'd certainly enjoy seeing the Vatican work to "develop and enrich its teaching in matters of faith and morals" better in that area of "the criteria of market freedom and efficiency," but there's enough common ground there still to appreciate the matter and not overly-prioritize it or browbeat CST over it. What I hope these pockets of traditionalism still manifesting in the contemporary Vatican, as well as those recent reports I've been seeing about young Catholics growing rebellious against reformist/modernist clerics (‘A step back in time'), will demonstrate is the continued and renewed vitality of Catholicism, and by extension "the West," against the smoldering ruins of Enlightenment liberalism.