A First Look at Dignitas Infinita
A Unifying Document?
This past Monday, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) released a new declaration on the dignity of the human person, Dignitas Infinita. When it was first reported that the DDF would be publishing a document on dignity, I expressed my hopes for the document here, particularly that the document would clarify the doctrinal status of the concept of dignity and its development in the Church’s Tradition. Now that we have the declaration in hand, I would say that it fulfills the former hope but not the latter. But my sense is this is because the document is intended to serve different purposes.
Dignitas Infinita is a complex and rich document, so my plan is to analyze different aspects of it over the next few weeks, in at least three articles:
In this week’s article, I want to describe what seems to be one of the main purposes of the declaration, to put forward the concept of “dignity” as a unifying principle within the Church, bringing together the concerns of what are often perceived to be different factions or constituencies within the Catholic Church.
In a later article, I hope to explore in more depth the document’s philosophical and theological understanding of the concept of dignity, putting it into conversation with other perspectives in the Catholic Church and in secular society.
Finally, I want to revisit the question of the development of doctrine as it pertains to the concept of dignity and how this is treated in Dignitas Infinita. In this final article, I’ll outline what I consider some of the main shortcomings of the document. For example, the document hardly considers the ways the Church itself, over the centuries, has failed to adequately respect human dignity, even on issues considered in the document, like the equality of women and the death penalty.
Before diving into the topic of this article, however, it would be helpful to provide a brief overview of Dignitas Infinita. For a more thorough summary of the document, see Gerard O’Connell’s reporting at America.
The declaration is organized into five sections, including an opening introduction:
In the introduction, Dignitas Infinita provides an overview of the central place the concept of dignity plays in the Catholic Church’s teaching about the human person. Perhaps the most important aspect of this section is its distinction between four meanings of the word “dignity”: ontological dignity, which refers to the inalienable worth that belongs to a person simply in virtue of being a person and is the foundation for their rights; moral dignity, which refers to exercising freedom in a way morally consistent with one’s ontological dignity; social dignity, or the measure of a person’s living conditions (i.e., whether or not they are “dignified”); and existential dignity, the meaning of which is somewhat obscure, but seems to refer to the psychological capacity to recognize one’s ontological dignity, which may be shaped by a person’s life circumstances.
The first section after the introduction describes the roots of the concept of “dignity” in the biblical and Christian tradition. For example, it points to God’s concern for the poor and vulnerable in the Old Testament, the theological claim that humankind is created in the image and likeness of God first introduced in Genesis and further developed by the Church Fathers, and the philosophical notion of a “person” as a “subsistent individual of a rational nature.” It goes on to trace how the concept of dignity and its link with human rights developed in more recent Catholic teaching.
The second section, which is relatively short, situates the concept of dignity within Christian doctrine, linking it to humankind’s creation in the image and likeness of God, the elevation of human nature by the Incarnation of Christ, and our vocation to fellowship with God. This section also explains that dignity must be lived out in freedom.
The third section seeks to explain how the understanding of dignity developed in the previous sections is more adequate than competing secular views of dignity. For example, this section argues that our sense of dignity must be grounded in the objective reality of our nature as human beings rather than in subjective desires.
The final section, which has garnered the most attention, summarizes several issues facing the world in which human dignity is under threat, including: poverty; war; migration; human trafficking; violence against women; abortion; surrogacy; euthanasia and assisted suicide; the treatment of people with disabilities; questions of gender and sexuality; sex change procedures; and “digital violence,” including cyberbullying.
Much of the last section consists in quotations from previous statements of Pope Francis, as well as his predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. When asked about this at the press conference announcing the release of the document, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the Prefect of the DDF, explained that this section is not meant to break new ground on Church teaching on these issues, but rather to organize these teachings around the unifying principle of dignity.
In a letter written to Fernández upon his appointment as Prefect of the DDF, Pope Francis explained the purpose of the DDF as increasing the Church’s understanding of its doctrine in the service of evangelization. Historically, the purpose of documents produced by the DDF (formerly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or CDF) has been to clarify disputed points in Catholic doctrine, to provide elaboration on aspects of the Church’s teaching, or to identify potential errors in the work of theologians.
Like Fiducia Supplicans, the DDF declaration published last December that opened the door for blessings of same-sex couples, but which presents itself as a development of the Church’s teaching on blessings, Dignitas Infinita seems to fall more into the second category, an elaboration of the Church’s teaching intended to inform pastoral and social action.
So, what question or problem is Dignitas Infinita intended to address? For one, it is meant to provide clarity on what dignity means, since “many misunderstandings of the concept still distort its meaning” (24). The sections elaborating on the meaning of dignity are perhaps the most substantial and interesting in the document, and as I noted above, I will explore these sections in a later article. I think Cardinal Fernández’s insistence that the “novelty” of the document is the fact that it organizes several teachings of the Church on social issues around the concept of dignity provides another clue as to the document’s purpose: to overcome polarization in the Church by demonstrating the coherence of diverse Church teachings.
This conclusion is reinforced by some comments made by Fernández in a January interview with the Spanish news agency EFE primarily focusing on Fiducia Supplicans. When asked whether that document would contribute to divisions in the Church, Fernández responded, “The division already existed, and is only becoming transparent [as a result of Fiducia Supplicans].” Later, in what I believe were his first public comments on what eventually became Dignitas Infinita, he suggests that it will be a more unifying document:
I must say, I don’t think I will be in the news in the future because we don’t have any subjects planned in the dicastery that could be very controversial, like the last ones. We are preparing a very important document on human dignity that not only includes social issues, but also a strong criticism of moral issues such as sex change, surrogacy, gender ideologies, etc. In this sense, the people most worried [about Fernández’s tenure at the DDF] will be put at ease. (my translation)
The contention that Dignitas Infinita would not generate headlines seems to have been mistaken, but it’s clear anyway that Fernández intended the declaration to be unifying rather than polemical.
The United States Catholic bishops, as many commentators have noted in recent years, are divided in their pastoral approach. Some bishops, sometimes referred to as “culture warriors” by their critics, place a great deal of emphasis on issues like abortion and questions of sexuality and gender identity, and tend to view the Catholic Church as threatened by an encroaching secular culture. For example, back in 2013, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois held a holy hour of “supplication and exorcism” in that diocese’s cathedral after the state legislature passed a measure legalizing same-sex marriage. More progressive bishops have sought to give greater emphasis to issues such as immigration and climate change. For example, Cardinal Robert McElroy, the Bishop of San Diego, challenged the U.S. bishops’ description of abortion as the “preeminent priority” for Catholics in the U.S. and has called on the U.S. bishops to do more regarding the climate. Probably the majority of U.S. bishops fall into neither of these categories, but their pastoral work remains shaped by this polarization.
These divisions among the U.S. bishops reflect a similar polarization among U.S. Catholics as a whole, as reflected in the summary of diocesan consultations produced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as part of the synodal process in 2022. And this polarization in the Catholic Church reflects the broader political and cultural polarization of American society.
Although the polarization of the U.S. Catholic Church has distinct characteristics, there are broader tensions within the global Church, as well, that have come to the fore in the ongoing synodal process. As I noted last September, the European continental assembly held in preparation for last year’s first session of the Synod on Synodality noted several of these tensions, including those between truth and mercy, tradition and aggiornamento, and unity and diversity, as well as tensions over the liturgy and the exercise of authority in the Church.
Admittedly, to some degree Pope Francis himself has played a role in heightening these tensions. For example, in an interview with Antonio Spadaro, S.J. published very early in his pontificate, Pope Francis famously said:
We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
Francis went on to say that the Church’s moral teachings must be presented within the context of its teachings on the saving work of Jesus Christ, a point with which it would be hard to disagree. Nevertheless, his remarks had the effect of suggesting that Francis was de-emphasizing certain issues that had been key parts of the Church’s message to the world. Similarly, in the interview cited earlier, Cardinal Fernández recognizes that Francis’s approach to ministering to LGBTQ persons has had a polarizing effect in the Church, as exemplified by the response to Fiducia Supplicans.
I think Dignitas Infinita needs to be read in this ecclesial context. The document attempts to show that the issues that are of concern to one group of Catholics or another are linked by a concern for the dignity of the human person. The Catholic seeking to provide welcome to African migrants traversing the dangerous waters of the Mediterranean or the Venezuelan refugee crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and the Catholic seeking the legal protection of the unborn share a common cause, even if they may be political opponents or may have distinct theologies or spiritualities.
By linking these several issues together under the umbrella of the dignity of the person, Dignitas Infinita also encourages us to interrogate ourselves about the ways we may have been tempted to overlook or minimize the dignity of certain types of people as a result of our own polarization. As Sam Sawyer, S.J., the editor-in-chief of America writes, “If you are not challenged somewhere in your own moral thinking by reading it, then you most likely have not read it thoroughly enough.” He likewise insists, “let its coherence be a call to conversion.”
Dignitas Infinita also seems to challenge polarization in the Church by linking Pope Francis’s teaching with that of his predecessors, particularly Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. Francis is sometimes portrayed as bringing about a significant break from the teachings of his predecessors, particularly the latter two. And in some significant ways, Francis did change course, for example in his treatment of the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried and others in “irregular” situations in Amoris Laetitia and the restrictions on the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass brought about by Traditionis Custodes. More broadly, “Pope Francis Catholics” inspired by Francis’s inclusive and welcoming style have been contrasted with “Pope John Paul II Catholics” drawn to the latter’s call for a heroic commitment to the truth. On the fringes of the Church, some looked to Pope Emeritus Benedict as a “true” pope waiting in the wings after the imagined downfall of a “heretical” Francis.
In a new book called The Successor: My Memories of Benedict XVI (El Sucesor, mis recuerdos de Benedicto XVI) a series of interviews with the Spanish journalist Javier Martínez Brocal, Pope Francis reveals a more harmonious relationship with Pope Emeritus Benedict. Similarly, Dignitas Infinita seems intent on demonstrating a harmony between the teachings of Francis and his predecessors, again centering on the theme of dignity. Whereas Fiducia Supplicans was criticized for relying almost entirely on citations of earlier statements by Pope Francis as its sources (a fact which some argued demonstrated its lack of basis in Tradition!), Dignitas Infinita takes a different tack. Although Francis himself is still cited dozens of times (as Cardinal Fernández notes in a prefatory letter, Francis’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti was used as a framework for editing the declaration’s final draft), by my count Pope Benedict is cited seven times, Pope John Paul II eleven times, and Paul VI three times.
It’s not just the number of citations that is significant, however. In the declaration’s final section, Popes John Paul II and Paul VI are cited calling for an end to war. Pope Benedict XVI is quoted lamenting economic inequality and the plight of the global poor. Similarly, earlier remarks by Francis on issues like abortion, assisted suicide, and gender are cited alongside those of his predecessors. The effect is to demonstrate the unified magisterial authority of the recent popes on a range of social issues and to dispel the notion that Francis has radically changed the Catholic Church’s areas of focus.
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are also prominently cited in the earlier sections of Dignitas Infinita outlining the doctrine of human dignity. This lends their authority to the document’s teaching. As I will explain in a later article, however, Dignitas Infinita is less successful in responding to those who would contrast Francis’s magisterial teaching not with that of his immediate predecessors, but rather with the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church, a more radical challenge to his authority (and that of his immediate predecessors!).
I don’t want to close without noting that the most controversial aspect of Dignitas Infinita’s teaching so far has been its treatment of “gender theory” or “gender ideology,” particularly as it pertains to the treatment of, and medical care for, transgender persons. This has certainly been the focus of the secular media, but it has also generated several responses among Catholics, as well. While some support the document’s defense of sex differences and critique of “gender theory,” others have argued that its treatment of the issue undercuts the document’s message regarding the inalienable dignity of all persons by denying the full dignity of transgender persons. Here is a roundup of Catholic analyses on the document’s treatment of sex, gender, and gender identity:
Author Abigail Favale, writing at The Pillar, praises Dignitas Infinita’s approach to gender, although offering some mild criticisms of certain aspects of its teaching. (Favale’s comments are presented in a Live Update format, alongside those of two other commentators, making it somewhat hard to read, although just scroll through to find her comments.)
Theologian Brian Flanagan, writing at New Ways Ministry, provides a roundup of eight short, critical responses to the document by academic theologians.
Theologian Dan Horan, O.F.M., writing for New Ways Ministry, argues that its treatment of “gender theory” presents a strawman argument and demonstrates a lack of consultation with transgender persons.
Journalist Jonathan Liedl, writing for the National Catholic Register, provides a roundup of quotes from scholars favorable toward the document’s treatment of gender theory and other issues.
Catholic author Amy Welborn offers an editorial at Catholic World Report largely supportive of Dignitas Inifinita’s message on gender, but critical of the lack of development of the argument and its focus on the vague term “gender ideology.”
Journalist Michael Sean Winters notes how much we don’t know regarding questions of sex and gender, and mildly critiques both sides’ responses to the document.
Let me know if you find other thoughtful commentaries on the issue, and I will keep my eyes open.
These various commentaries, however, make clear that the declaration’s method of summarizing the Church’s teaching on different social issues primarily by quoting prior magisterial statements did not work well regarding its treatment of sex and gender. As Therese Lysaught notes in her contribution to Flanagan’s roundup, “After five years [i.e., the length of time Cardinal Fernández reported had been spent drafting the document], one would have expected a careful and thorough analysis, informed by rigorous scientific evidence, academically-sound theological scholarship, as well as the perspectives of women and transgender persons themselves.” Such an in-depth analysis, however, was not provided on issues like war or poverty either. The difference is, of course, that Catholic teaching on those issues has been well developed in several social encyclicals and other documents, but the Church’s teaching on transgender identity, sex change procedures, etc. is relatively embryonic.
Dignitas Inifinita is, among other things, intended to provide Catholics with a unifying approach to the Church’s social mission centered on the dignity of the human person. It attempts to show how a range of issues, some a central concern for certain groups of Catholics, others more the focus of other groups, in fact all reflect a concern for the dignity of the person. The declaration provides one possible antidote to the polarization and division within the Catholic Church in the form of the concept of dignity. By weaving together citations from Pope Francis and his immediate predecessors, the document also attempts to demonstrate the continuities in the Church’s recent magisterial teachings rather than the discontinuities. Some of the topics considered in Dignitas Inifinita remain contested among Catholics, however, and so the document’s ability to rally Catholics together faces significant obstacles.