Posted on 11/05/2024 10:14:29 AM PST by ebb tide
The Declaration Dignitas Infinita "on human dignity," issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández on April 2, 2024, and approved by the Holy Father ex audientia (thus, without an explicit signature), presents itself as a document examining human dignity. This document would fall under the so-called authentic magisterium of Pope Francis, meaning it constitutes teaching that, although not engaging infallibility with a definitive act, still requires, according to the Code of Canon Law, "a religious submission of the intellect and will" (CIC 752). This leaves a certain degree of freedom for theological debate and analysis.
Let us, then, examine the points in this document that merit rigorous critical analysis in light of Catholic doctrine, particularly regarding the risk of ambiguity and departure from the Church's magisterial Tradition.
One of the primary issues lies in the document's failure to define the term "dignity" within itself. Despite the central theme being human dignity, the document proposes the existence of four specific types of dignity—ontological, social, moral, and existential—without sufficiently clarifying (1) what "dignity" means and (2) what these four forms of dignity consist of. Among these, the document asserts that only human "ontological dignity" is infinite. This claim resonates alarmingly with the Masonic idea that man possesses an unlimited intrinsic value, a belief that aspires to elevate man to the level of God.
In contrast, St. Thomas Aquinas provides a clear and faith-consistent definition: dignitas is "the intrinsic goodness of a being" (In Sent. III, d. 35, q. 1, a. 4, q. 1, c.). If human dignity were infinite, then human rights would logically also be infinite. This assertion is dangerous because, in essence, it attributes to man an attribute exclusive to the divine: infinity (S.Th. I, q.7, a.1). According to Catholic doctrine, however, man is a creature who, although created in God's image and likeness, remains finite and, regrettably, marked by original sin. By declaring the infinity of human dignity, the document seems to implicitly deny the dogma of original sin, suggesting that man retains a perfect and limitless goodness—a notion incompatible with Christian anthropology.
The Declaration suggests that human dignity, being infinite, serves as the basis to avoid violence toward others. Such a statement implies that human dignity is immutable and not subject to degradation. However, this is false. Catholic Tradition teaches that mortal sin degrades an individual's dignity.
Man may indeed aspire to union with God through grace, but his dignity does not become infinite in itself except by virtue of Jesus Christ. Therefore, referring to an "infinite" dignity of man represents a serious theological error and may open the door to anthropocentric tendencies, where man is deluded into thinking he possesses a kind of absolute autonomy, contrary to the recognition of his dependence on God. As the Liturgy reminds us, we are saved “through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ.” There are no other ways!
St. Thomas Aquinas, in De rationibus fidei, further clarifies: "No mere man has an infinite dignity, capable of adequately satisfying an offense against God." Original sin has severely compromised man’s goodness, introducing a wound to his nature that necessitates Redemption. If man possessed an infinite dignity, he would be able to atone for the infinite guilt of sin by himself. Instead, Catholic doctrine teaches that only God, by assuming human nature in Christ, was able to redeem humanity.
Therefore, the claim of an infinite dignity undermines, in its ultimate implications, the logical and theological necessity of the Incarnation and the Redemption accomplished by Christ. The entire theological structure of sin and salvation is called into question here. The real question becomes, then: do the authors of this document believe in original sin and the need for a Redeemer?
Another highly damaging consequence for Catholic theology is the denial of hell. If, in fact, every person possesses infinite dignity and can claim infinite rights, even before God (we emphasize: dignity is the source of rights), then every person can atone for their own guilt and save themselves without the necessity of the Divine Mediator.
Furthermore, the Declaration suggests that human dignity, being infinite, serves as the basis to avoid violence toward others. Such a statement implies that human dignity is immutable and not subject to degradation. However, this is false. Catholic Tradition teaches that mortal sin degrades an individual's dignity. An infinite dignity, on the other hand, would render man immune to any conditioning or diminishment. Such a notion eliminates all theological and even philosophical justification for social and civil penalties, including the death penalty, which, although permitted only in very precise and exceptional cases, has always been recognized as legitimate in traditional doctrine.
The citation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an "authoritative echo" of human dignity raises significant concerns. The Church, as the sole bearer of divine Truth, cannot and must not seek validation from a world organization that represents a secular and relativistic view of dignity and rights.
By emphasizing the "infinite dignity" of man, the document also seems to promote a view of human nature that risks being Neo-Pelagian, placing excessive confidence in man's natural abilities without the necessary aid of divine grace. This view was condemned centuries ago by the Council of Orange (529 AD), which reaffirmed the need for grace for salvation and for every good deed performed by man. Catholic doctrine affirms that man, wounded by original sin, needs grace to be elevated toward God (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2001).
Finally, the citation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an "authoritative echo" of human dignity raises significant concerns. The Church, as the sole bearer of divine Truth, cannot and must not seek validation from a world organization that represents a secular and relativistic view of dignity and rights. The UN, in fact, promotes an idea of human rights that often conflicts with Christian principles, as evidenced by its positions on abortion and sexuality. What should be a doctrinal proclamation of the Church paradoxically ends up seeking legitimacy from an external source.
The Declaration Dignitas infinita risks distancing the Church from her authentic evangelical message and aligning her with principles foreign to Christian doctrine. Instead of relying on the authority of the Magisterium and Scripture, the document appears to adopt anthropological views close to modernism and Freemasonry, which see man as the measure of all things. According to the Catholic perspective, man is a noble yet finite creature, marked by sin and in need of redemption. His dignity is not infinite but depends entirely on his relationship with the Creator, and it is fully realized only in divine grace.
Rather than becoming an “authoritative echo” of worldly principles, the Church must remind the world that the only infinite dignity belongs to God and that only through Christ and the sacramental life in the Catholic Church man can be elevated, purified, and saved. Only in this way the Church may continue to be a beacon of truth and a guardian of human dignity according to God's design.
Gaetano Masciullo is a Catholic philosopher and writer, and collaborator with Fede & Cultura, the leading traditional Catholic publishing house in Italy. He contributes regularly to Catholic platforms in Italy and focuses his work on analyzing theological and philosophical themes in light of Catholic tradition.
Ping
particular sins have become lifestyles.
Can someone explain how a finite creature can have “infinite dignity”? Doesn’t sound possible to me; sounds like yet-another example of sloppy thinking and grade-school level philosophy from the current inhabitants of the Vatican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.