top of page
Writer's pictureThe Hermit of Antipolo

DIGNITAS INFINITA (Under the Fig Tree Part 42)

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued on April 8 a document on human dignity, entitled Dignitas Infinita (DI), with inputs from and approval of Pope Francis.   

It has many good points in it, including a condemnation of abortion and surrogacy, and strong opposition to gender theory and sex change. However, it can also be said that it leans to modernist thought, with focus on man but not on the righteousness of God. While this approach can have a wider impact on and acceptability by the world including non-Catholics, it can fall short of upholding the values and teachings of the Church. But being a Church document, should it not look first and foremost to spiritual rather than secular thought?     

Let us examine certain aspects.

 

    First, DI talks of ontological dignity which belongs to every person simply because he exists, created in the image and likeness of by God (#1 of DI). That this dignity is inviolable and can never be lost (#15 of DI). But traditional Catholic teaching says that the natural dignity of man in the image of God is based upon his ability to know and love God. St Thomas Aquinas describesthis as supernatural dignity, which is only found in baptized members of the Church who are in a state of grace. Such dignity can be lost through sin. Human dignity corresponds to man’s conformity with grace. To insist on inalienable dignity that cannot be lost is tantamount to denial of sin. Modernists do look to the well-being of man while turning a blind eye to sin.     

St Thomas Aquinas in fact uses such loss of dignity in his defense of the death penalty. Note that Pope Francis unilaterally changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church to condemn the death penalty, contrary to its being allowed by the Church through the years given certain circumstances. DI makes a special point of denouncing the death penalty (#34 of DI).     

So DI claims infinite dignity for the human person, but in truth only Jesus and Mary have infinite dignity, Jesus because he is the Son of God, and Mary because she is the Mother of God. Man, though made in the image and likeness of God, does not possess infinite dignity.     

In fact, if man has infinite and inalienable dignity, how can grave unrepentant sinners end up in hell? Oh yes, modernists deny the existence of hell.

 

     Second, DI references the UN 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its issuance was timed to commemorate the 75th anniversary of this document (#2 of DI). This seems to make a Church document dependent upon a secular one, with the Church following in the footsteps of the State.     

This UN Declaration suggests that the source of inalienable rights is found in the dignity of very human person (#14 and Footnote #26 of DI). But the UN has a different concept of human rights and dignity from that of the Church. For the UN and the world, human rights include such things as gender equality and even abortion. As such, it looks to the rights of man but violates the rights of God. Further, when it comes to dignity, modernists uphold such dignity even in the most egregious of sinners.

 

     Third, DI says that based on the recognition and acceptance of human dignity, a new coexistence among people can be established that develops social relationships in the content of authentic fraternity (#6 of DI). Modernists look to universal fraternity, that all people are brethren, as an ideal. But this is a Freemasonic ideal. The Christian ideal is the brotherhood of all who are in Christ.     

DI highlights a line from Fratelli Tutti, namely, that “dignity exists ‘beyond allcircumstances.’” This strives to show that this is a universal truth that we are all called to recognize as a fundamental condition for our societies to be truly just, peaceful, healthy, and authentically human. Notice the emphasis on what is right for society, that is, on justice, peace, health and humanity.     

DI further states that 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. Again, the focus is on the common good and human legal systems.     

DI insists that every human person retains his dignity, regardless of any wrong choices or offenses. Specifically, it condemns mistreatment of homosexuals, including being deprived of the good of life solely based on their sexual orientation. Do you see that this can easily lead to accepting homosexual lifestyles, even transgenderism?

 

   Fourth, while DI mentions the Church’s condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, the text only mentions “sin” on two occasions, both occurring in the same sentence (#22 of DI). In talking about abortion, there is no mention of the penalty of mortal sin incurred by direct cooperation with abortion. Abortion is described as a sin against a human being, but not as a sin against God.     

In the same way, surrogacy is mentioned as violating the dignity of the child and of the woman surrogate, but not as violating the laws of God. Is this now changing the nature of sin, to being a violation of human dignity but not an offense against God? Again, there is the modernist emphasis on man and not on God.

 

      Fifth, DI has no mention of homosexuality. This is a serious omission in a text given to human dignity and the ways in which it is gravely violated. In fact, the CDF’s 1975 document Persona Humana says that there can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected. Persona Humana adds that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.     

In fact, Cardinal Fernandez, at a press conference launching DI, issued a call for the Catholic description of homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered to be changed. He does say that homosexual acts cannot match the great beauty of marriage between a man and a woman. But this appears to suggest the possibility that homosexual actions have their own kind of “beauty.” Just think of the verbal gymnastics the Vatican utilized to try to justify the blessing of same-sexcouples in Fiducia Supplicans.

 

     Sixth, there is a long list of violations of human dignity that are mentioned, such as poverty, war, travail of migrants, human trafficking, sexual abuse, violence against women, abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and marginalization of people with disabilities. But what is not emphasized is how we violate our dignity through distortion of our sexuality, such as pornography, extra-marital sex, contraception, divorce, and society’s commitment to justify sexual desires and practices.     

It must be noted that the widest violations of human dignity in the contemporary world, especially the West, are in the areas of sexuality. But these are the areas particularly sidelined by modernists in the Church. Is the silence of DI on these matters deliberate?

 

    To sum up, overall there is a lot of good in DI. It has emphasized the importance of human dignity. We are urged to safeguard our human dignity and that of others. The world would be a better place if we all looked to the dignity of every human person. However, its very title or premise or foundation, which is infinite dignity, is problematic, as it is a false premise.     

Let us just not forget that human dignity is ultimately founded on Christ and doing the will of God.

 

Salve Regina.

1 view

댓글


bottom of page