PopeWatch: Dignitas Infinita: Summarized With Commentary

13.  The Christian humanism of the Renaissance later emphasized this ontological dignity and its preeminent manifestation in free human action.^[23] Even in the writings of such modern thinkers as Descartes and Kant, who challenged some of the foundations of traditional Christian anthropology, one can still strongly perceive echoes of Revelation. Building upon some recent philosophical reflections about the status of theoretical and practical subjectivity, Christian reflection then came to emphasize even more the depths of the concept of dignity. In the twentieth century, this reached an original perspective (as seen in Personalism) that reconsidered the question of subjectivity and expanded it to encompass intersubjectivity and the relationships that bind people together.^[24] The thinking flowing from this view has enriched contemporary Christian anthropology.^[25]  

This attempt to baptize modern concepts of human “rights”  can only be done by ignoring the traditional Christian focus on God.  All of mankind have worth, not because that quality is inherent in the human condition, but because they are children of God.  Jefferson noted that with his “They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

14.  Today, the term “dignity” is mainly used to emphasize the uniqueness of the human person, incomparable to all other entities in the universe. From this perspective, we can understand how the word “dignity” was used in the 1948 United Nations Declaration, which speaks about “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” Only this inalienable character of human dignity makes it possible to speak about human rights.^[26]

The UN rears its ugly head again.  The Cardinal seems to want secular authority to support his argument rather than to have God as the fount of whatever dignity and rights Man has.

15.  All human beings possess this same intrinsic dignity, regardless of whether or not they can express it in a suitable manner.  Absent God, most human beings throughout history have possessed only the rights and dignity that their rulers cared to grant them.

16.  For this reason, the Second Vatican Council speaks of the “sublime dignity of the human person, who stands above all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable.”^[27] Pretty words and historically false.  Only Man’s relation to God makes them in in any sense true.

17.  The Church proclaims the equal dignity of all people, regardless of their living conditions or qualities.   As a practical matter the Church has been quite comfortable with great inequalities among people   Twenty centuries is a vast amount of time and the Church was not created in 1965.

18.  The first conviction, drawn from Revelation, holds that the dignity of the human person comes from the love of the Creator, who has imprinted the indelible features of his image on every person (cf. Gen. 1:26).   This is true, and the only real basis for human dignity and equality.

19.  The second conviction follows from the fact that the dignity of the human person was revealed in its fullness when the Father sent his Son, who assumed human existence to the full: “In the mystery of the Incarnation, the Son of God confirmed the dignity of the body and soul which constitute the human being.”  Overstated.  Christ came to save as many of us as He could from eternal damnation.

20.  Indeed, “the dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God,”^[32] destined to last forever. Correct.

21.  Consequently, the Church believes and affirms that all human beings—created in the image and likeness of God and recreated^[34] 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). Indeed, “Revelation ^[…] shows forth the dignity of the human person in all its fullness.”^[35]

We see in this passage what an awkward term dignity is.  In Baptism we are redeemed from sin.  Any “dignity” we have is almost entirely a reflection of our relationship with God.

22.  Every individual possesses an inalienable and intrinsic dignity from the beginning of his or her existence as an irrevocable gift. However, the choice to express that dignity and manifest it to the full or to obscure it depends on each person’s free and responsible decision.

And here we see how slippery the phrase “inalienable and intrinsic dignity’ is.  Assuming this is true, how can our actions “obscure” it?  Get away from the concepts of grace and sin, very clear terms in the history of the Church, and we are left with a college bull session that has gone on way too long.

23.  As Pope Francis has recalled, “In modern culture, the closest reference to the principle of the inalienable dignity of the person is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Saint John Paul II defined as a ‘milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race,’ and as ‘one of the highest expressions of the human conscience.’”^[38] To resist attempts to alter or annul the profound meaning of that Declaration, it is worth recalling some essential principles that must always be honored.

Back to the UN again.  It is an indication that something is very wrong when a Vatican document continually goes back to a mendacious tower of wind like the UN.

24.  On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, precisely because it is intrinsic, remains “in all circumstances.” 

Even in Hell?  Now as a matter of pragmatism, or aspiration, one may wish to assign general rights to humanity.  However, that merely underlines that a phrase like “the dignity of every human person” is an empty bag to be filled.  Jefferson in the Declaration immediately names some of the inalienable rights postulated by him to be granted by the Creator.  An empty bag can be filled with many things, and that is the problem with the concept.

25.  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.

At least the Cardinal recognizes the problem.  His solution is a verbal sleight of hand which will satisfy no one other than those predisposed to agree with him.  In this area, only a “Thus sayeth the Lord” can raise an opinion into a Law, and the UN is never a substitute for the Lord.

26.  In fact, as Pope St. John Paul II recalled, freedom is placed “at the service of the person and of his fulfillment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.”^[42]

Freedom, like anything else, can be abused.  The freedom to kill an unborn child is a classic case in point.  The Libertarian “so long as I do no harm to others” is superficially attractive, until we recall that by harming themselves people usually harm others as a consequence.  Philosophical musings in this area tend to become circular rapidly, with freedom being restricted in areas where the muser wishes it to be restricted and not in areas where he does not wish freedom to be restricted.

27.  Human dignity also encompasses the capacity, inherent in human nature, to assume obligations vis-à-vis others. 

A tricky area.  Obligations freely assumed are one thing;  obligations imposed are another.  It likely is a safe assumption that the Mom and Dad who were just sentenced to ten and fifteen years apiece, because their brat murdered four of his classmates in a school in Michigan, freely assumed the obligation of being parents, and are now shocked to learn that includes going to prison for murders they did not commit.

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Luke 11: 46

28.  The difference between humans and all other living beings, which stands out thanks to the concept of dignity, should not lead us to forget the goodness of other creatures.

Can’t forget our furry friends!  How twenty-first century.  Incomprehensible to the vast majority of humanity in all times who live life closer to the bone in a day to day struggle to get enough food.

29.  In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul affirms that “for freedom, Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1), recalling the task proper to each Christian, on whose shoulders rests a responsibility for liberation that extends to the whole world (cf. Rom. 8:19ff). This is a liberation that, starting from the hearts of individual people, is called to spread and manifest its humanizing power across all relationships.

Proof that Saint Paul should never be mentioned by a theological lightweight.

30.  Freedom is a marvelous gift from God. Even when God draws us to him with his grace, he does so in a way that never violates our freedom. Thus, 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. 

True enough:

Of course the Dathans will say that restricting freedom in the name of God is the negation of freedom.  False prophets throughout history indicate that they are half right.

31.  Moreover, it would be unrealistic to posit an abstract freedom devoid of any influence, context, or limitation. Instead, “the proper exercise of personal freedom requires specific conditions of an economic, social, juridic, political and cultural order,”^[48] which often remain unfulfilled. In this sense, we can say that some individuals enjoy more “freedom” than others. Pope Francis has given special attention to this point: “Some people are born into economically stable families, receive a fine education, grow up well nourished, or naturally possess great talent. They will certainly not need a proactive state; they need only claim their freedom. Yet, the same rule clearly does not apply to a disabled person, to someone born in dire poverty, to those lacking a good education and with little access to adequate health care. 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.”

In other words, you can’t be free unless you have a Mommy State, which establishes that neither the Cardinal nor the Pope have the foggiest understanding of freedom.

32.  At the same time, human history shows clear progress in understanding human dignity and freedom, albeit not without shadows and risks of regression.

Really?  History shows no such thing.  What history does show is that freedom was almost annihilated in the last century, courtesy of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.  Today, freedom is increasingly restricted by the woke madness.  Freedom has had its victories, 1776 comes blazingly to mind, but the only pattern I can discern is a constant fight to gain freedom and to maintain it.

33.  In light of the previous reflections on the centrality of human dignity, the final section of this Declaration addresses some specific and grave violations of that dignity.

I have no problem with that as a general proposition, although a debate on what constitutes such a violation by twenty centuries of popes would be a sight to see.  The pope of the moment of course is a prisoner of his times, as we all are, but he should understand that he is the Vicar of Christ and should seek, always imperfectly, to follow the Gospel and to transcend his times, when those times are contrary to the Gospel.

34.  In addressing some of the many grave violations of human dignity today, we can draw upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which emphasized that “all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, and willful suicide” must be recognized as contrary to human dignity.^[53] Furthermore, the Council affirmed that “all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures,” also infringe upon our dignity.^[54] Finally, it denounced “all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where individuals are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons.”^[55] Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances.^[56] In this regard, we must recognize that “the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. 

And here we see the havoc wreaked by presentism.  The Church always taught that the death penalty was morally licit until the day before yesterday in historical terms.  Popes as rulers of the Papal States had executioners in their employ.  The laundry list thrown together by Vatican II, subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where individuals are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons., is notable for vagueness, define subhuman living conditions, and silliness, deportation.  When we move away from the Gospel, we are reliant upon the wisdom, or lack thereof, of clerics, a prospect that  the last six decades does not demonstrate as one in which to inspire confidence.

35.  While not claiming to be exhaustive, the following paragraphs draw attention to some grave violations of human dignity that are particularly relevant.

36.  One of the phenomena that contributes significantly to denying the dignity of so many human beings is extreme poverty, linked as it is to the unequal distribution of wealth. 

Christ of course said that we would always have the poor with us.  That does not allow for indifference to the plight of the poor, as Christ also called for charity to help the poor, but it does recognize that poverty is subjective, and that some people will always have less possessions and resources than other.  The rapid abandonment of a pooling of resources by the Church, the epistles of Saint Paul already showing the breaking down of this experiment, demonstrates the limits of solving the problem of poverty by pretending that humans do not have differences in regard to their ability to work, drive to succeed, shrewdness in managing money, etc.  Our clerics these days wish to “solve” poverty by screaming for Caesar to dispense ever more government largesse, something that Christ did not utter a syllable in support of.

37.  The claim that the modern world has reduced poverty is made by measuring poverty with criteria from the past that do not correspond to present-day realities.”

Can’t give capitalism any credit for radically improving the living conditions of the vast majority of the people on the planet.

38.  Another tragedy that denies human dignity, both in the past and today, is war: “War, terrorist attacks, racial or religious persecution, and many other affronts to human dignity ^[…] ‘have become so common as to constitute a real ‘third world war’ fought piecemeal.’”^[64] With its trail of destruction and suffering, war attacks human dignity in both the short and long term: “While reaffirming the inalienable right to self-defense and the responsibility to protect those whose lives are threatened, we must acknowledge that war is always a ‘defeat of humanity.’ No war is worth the tears of a mother who has seen her child mutilated or killed; no war is worth the loss of the life of even one human being, a sacred being created in the image and likeness of the Creator; no war is worth the poisoning of our common home; and no war is worth the despair of those who are forced to leave their homeland and are deprived, from one moment to the next, of their home and all the family, friendship, social and cultural ties that have been built up, sometimes over generations.”^[65] 

War is rarely a cause but rather a symptom.  In the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, for example, the evil was not the War, but the Nazi intent to conquer Poland, murder most of the Poles, and enslave the rest.  The pacifism that Cardinal Fernandez and the Pope embrace, would leave humanity ruled by the worst among us.

39.  Therefore, even today, the Church cannot but make her own the words of the Pontiffs, repeating with Pope St. Paul VI: “jamais plus la guerre, jamais plus la guerre!” [“never again war, never again war!”].^[67]

John Paul II of course doubtless would have ended up in a Nazi extermination camp, but for the Allies winning the War.

40.  Migrants are among the first victims of multiple forms of poverty.

And the hobby horse of this Pope trots in.  The Pope’s unyielding support of mass illegal Islamic immigration into Europe might well be the most pernicious legacy of this kidney stone of a pontificate.

41.  Human trafficking must also be counted among the grave violations of human dignity.^[77]

Most certainly.  Pope Francis by fostering mass illegal immigration from Muslim countries into Europe has, unwittingly, greatly fostered and expanded this vile trade.

42.  For these reasons, the Church and humanity must not cease fighting against such phenomena as “the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labor, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism, and international organized crime.

Well, duh.  Less cynically there are powerful, well funded groups and individuals who view human beings only as commodities.  Slavery never goes away forever.  It reappears under new guises and new names.

43.  The profound dignity inherent in human beings in their entirety of mind and body also allows us to understand why all sexual abuse leaves deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it. 

Doubtless Rupnik can explain to the Holy Father all about it.

44.  Violence against women is a global scandal that is gaining increasing recognition.

Rupnik should perhaps be on speed dial with the Pope.

45.  He also recalled that “the time has come to condemn vigorously the types of sexual violence which frequently have women for their object and to pass laws which effectively defend them from such violence. 

Perhaps Rupnik can suggest new legislation?

46.  In this consideration of violence against women, one cannot condemn enough the phenomenon of femicide.

Given a new lease on “life” through genetic testing followed by abortion:  search and destroy missions.

47.  On account of the intangible value of human life, the Church’s magisterium has always spoken out against abortion.

Nothing wrong with this paragraph.  It is tragic that the Pope’s words against abortion are constantly belied by his actions.

48.  The Church also takes a stand against the practice of surrogacy, through which the immensely worthy child becomes a mere object.

Correct.  Treating people as a commodity.

49.  First and foremost, the practice of surrogacy violates the dignity of the child. Indeed, every child possesses an intangible dignity that is clearly expressed—albeit in a unique and differentiated way—at every stage of his or her life: from the moment of conception, at birth, growing up as a boy or girl, and becoming an adult. Because of this unalienable dignity, the child has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin and to receive the gift of a life that manifests both the dignity of the giver and that of the receiver. Moreover, acknowledging the dignity of the human person also entails recognizing every dimension of the dignity of the conjugal union and of human procreation. Considering this, the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life.^[93]

Well said.

50.  Surrogacy also violates the dignity of the woman, whether she is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely. For, in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others. This contrasts in every way with the fundamental dignity of every human being and with each person’s right to be recognized always individually and never as an instrument for another.

Also well said.  In many cases this really comes down to child buying.

51.  There is a special case of human dignity violation that is quieter but is swiftly gaining ground. It is unique in how it utilizes a mistaken understanding of human dignity to turn the concept of dignity against life itself. This confusion is particularly evident today in discussions surrounding euthanasia.

Good.

52.  Certainly, the dignity of those who are critically or terminally ill calls for all suitable and necessary efforts to alleviate their suffering through appropriate palliative care and by avoiding aggressive treatments or disproportionate medical procedures. This approach corresponds with the “enduring responsibility to appreciate the needs of the sick person: care needs, pain relief, and affective and spiritual needs.”^[94] However, an effort of this nature is entirely different from—and is indeed contrary to—a decision to end one’s own life or that of another person who is burdened by suffering.

Correct.

53.  One criterion for verifying whether real attention is given to the dignity of every individual in society is the help given to the most disadvantaged. Regrettably, our time is not known for such care; rather, a “throwaway culture” is increasingly imposing itself.^[97]

Nations like Canada using assisted suicide to “solve” problems of poverty, depression, mental illness, etc.  The search and destroy missions that are completely eradicating Down children in some nations, Denmark and Iceland for example.

54.  In a broader perspective, it must be remembered that “this charity, which is the spiritual heart of politics, is always a preferential love shown to those in greatest need; it undergirds everything we do on their behalf. […]

Those who depend upon Caesar for charity will ultimately go away empty at best, dead at worst.

55.  The Church wishes, first of all, “to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”^[101] For this reason, it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.

The buzz word used to be “sexual preference” until the advantages of claiming “gay from birth” was recognized.  Such sexual perversion was called, “the crime that dare not speak its name”, under Common Law.  Until the last century, such perversion was a criminal offense around the globe.  In World War II, in the US military, homosexual acts were often punished by life imprisonment, with the sentences commuted and the offenders released and dishonorably discharged by the end of the War if not before.   The attitude of the Church, traditionally, was to condemn sodomy root and branch.

56.  At the same time, the Church highlights the definite critical issues present in gender theory.

The Pope condemns gender theory and transgenderism.  (One can rarely be wrong all the time.)

57.  Regarding gender theory, whose scientific coherence is the subject of considerable debate among experts, the Church recalls that human life in all its dimensions, both physical and spiritual, is a gift from God. This gift is to be accepted with gratitude and placed at the service of the good. Desiring a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes, apart from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift, amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God, entering into competition with the true God of love revealed to us in the Gospel.

In an age of junk science, it would be best to avoid citing science, especially in regard to morality, where even accurate science is of very limited utility.

58.  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. In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvelous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world.

Male and Female He made them.  Of course homosexuality inverts the sexual attraction between the sexes and transforms a necessary and natural attraction and imperative into a fetish.

59.  It needs to be emphasized that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.’”^[104] Therefore, 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.”^[105] Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity.

We have the misfortune to live in time where the most basic concepts of the human condition are constantly under siege by the forces of the Left.

60.  It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception. This is not to exclude the possibility that a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities. However, in this case, such a medical procedure would not constitute a sex change in the sense intended here.

The exception can swallow up the rule in this area.

61.  Although the advancement of digital technologies may offer many possibilities for promoting human dignity, it also increasingly tends toward the creation of a world in which exploitation, exclusion, and violence grow, extending even to the point of harming the dignity of the human person. 

I used to think that alien historians might catalogue civilizations with the frequent observation:  This civilization discovered nuclear weapons and went extinct ____ years after that discovery.

Now I wonder if that formulation might mention the internet rather than nuclear weapons.

62.  In this perspective, if technology is to serve human dignity and not harm it, and if it is to promote peace rather than violence, then the human community must be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the good:

Like we did the printing press?

63.  On the 75th anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Pope Francis reaffirmed that this document “is like a master plan, from which many steps have been taken, but many still need to be made, and unfortunately, at times, steps backward have been taken.

Fruit of the rotten tree.  Christ never quoted Caesar.

64.  In this spirit, 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. 

Like the Chinese government does which the Vatican has bent over backwards.  I am not interested in what you say but what you do.

65.  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.’”^[115]

Expecting much from Caesar other than trouble is usually a fool’s wager.

66.  Even today, in the face of so many violations of human dignity that seriously threaten the future of the human family, the Church encourages the promotion of the dignity of every human person, regardless of their physical, mental, cultural, social, and religious characteristics.

The end.