Thank you for your reporting! I find myself relieved to hear that the document seems to just straightforwardly teach Catholic anthropology. It will be interesting to see how the secular press decides to headline this
The footnotes of Dignitatis Infinata? Shocker, it's 95% self-references to Pope Francis. We've gone from a "Hermeneutic of Continuity with the entire 2,000 years of the Church" to a "Hermeneutic solely of Francis' Pontificate"
That is not accurate. The footnotes DO reference other things that the Holy Father has said, but there are many, many references to recent popes - Leo XIII and forward - and many other works besides.
I think close readers will notice lots of these similarities in how Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis worked and thought, in contrast to Benedict XVI.
This is an excellent framing of Catholic social teaching that helps us graduate away from yes/no answers and instead put doctrine in the context of moral theology. In the 13th century, Catholic theology understood human dignity as relative to his/her place in social status, believing that God would have brought people into the world in different forms (female, disabled) if they were capable of authority. We've moved forward, and see that the forms God gives us reflect the image of God and universal dignity. It allows us to move into deeper questions about how we respond to a changing world. How do we orient our entire lives toward God and do so in communion with one another. Great document.
Isn't every moral question a “yes/no”? Even in applying pastoral circumstances to a situation, the ultimate point of engaging moral theology is to come to a yes/no answer for a particular action to take in that situation.
It sounds like you're accusing medieval moral theology with temporal relativism, and “ableism.“ But no, not everything in the medieval period was based on social class.
Are there really “deeper questions“ that we are only uncovering now? I really don't know of any new questions. Humanity is the same and its circumstances – including oral contraception – do not change its nature.
The coverage we are reading here makes clear that DI completely rejects moral relativism.
Absolutely never tarnish a saint let alone Aquinas. He should be credited with taking entirely stagnant conversations and moving them forward in profound and meaningful ways no one else was capable of. Not to mention, he didn't want to freeze theology he wanted the next generation to continue growing deeper in their understanding of theology. He left us methods to do that. Here is an article on the 13th century theological developments in this field from a professor at a university named for Aquinas: https://jmt.scholasticahq.com/article/18891-the-evolution-of-human-dignity-in-catholic-morality
I am not certain that we have "moved forward" per se. We have definitely moved in some direction (along the x axis and/or y axis), but I don't think that in the Church militant we are either collectively or on average *more holy* today than in the 13th century, and holiness (z axis) is the only forward that there is. (A counterargument could be made that "closer to the second coming" is the only forward that there is, which I concede, but then we are always moving forward. A consoling thought. I would like to see Jesus.)
Theology is definitely seeing a renewal of Aquinas in a couple of senses. To an extent we had set aside his methods for a few centuries in order to create “clarity” and avoid allowing the faithful to become confused wresting with conscience. The most notable is that in the 17th century up until post WWII the way we taught natural law that reduced it badly, and dis-integrated inclination toward virtues. Perhaps as a reaction to Protestantism, we started chasing after sin, seeking justice without recourse to peculiarities or whole of the situation. Oversimplifying and without looking into the merits of the claims in this comment, it reached a breaking point after two world wars of European bishops pitted their flocks against the, both telling the faithful it was a just and holy war. The document today reflects some of that advancing forward in Theology, where we allow the principle of human dignity to inform how we orient our lives. Rather than simply looking to zap error. In this comment, I’m thinking by to a 2011 article by Daniel Daly.
Contraception and IVF both could have easily found a place in the document as violations of human dignity, since there were closely related themes. It’s pretty disappointing, given how widespread such practices are reported to be, even among Christians. Does IVF not deserve to be mentioned (apart from the related act of surrogacy) as a form of human trafficking? There is also a similar gap next to the part condemning the mistreatment of people on the basis of sexual orientation. What of the reinterpretation of marriage in the West? These are all attacks on the dignity of the human person that are probably within the personal experience of many Catholics. These are all real and unfortunate lacunae in the document, even as many other things are perfectly fine.
Honestly, in five years of drafting contraception and IVF never came up as apt topics?
I think it actually helps bolster the credibility of HV. We very very rarely dive into theological discussions on sex in American Catholicism beyond structures. But outside of the USA, the theological views of HV are suffering because it only contemplates the structural elements of sex (as it it’s exclusively an exchange of body parts). DI clearly says you can’t look at the relational and psychological in order to discount the structural. That shuts the widest door that opponents of HV have.
I'd need to read it myself, but I dare say that this "smells" more of Francis than it does of Tucho. It sounds more like what Pope Francis actually believes regarding gender theory and Catholic anthropology than what people and the popular press say he thinks.
We've seen repeatedly that Pope Francis condemns gender theory and abortion - this sounds in line with that.
1) DI has only reinforced my understadning that the Church has formally reversed on, and defected from, its teaching on the Death Penalty. People need to stop this idea that "oh, but he didn't say the magic words 'intrinsic moral evil'!" when it's clear that, time and time again, Francis has declared that the act is always morally wrong in every single instance, regardless of any circumstances, and because it violates an unchanging and fundamental principle of intrinsic human dignity.
2) Depite all the paragraphs on gender ideology, DI never actually condemns transgender ideology or gender transitions. The best that it manages to do is frame it alongside a non-transgender anthropology, making the two appear simply coexistent though discordant. And sex-change operations are apparently not wrong, they merely only "*RISK* threatening the unique dignity" of the person (i.e. sex-change surgeries and HRT and other methods of transitioning only possess the *possibility* of maybe perhaps possibly being wrong in some instances, but that's not necessarily always the case apparently).
What a shame - what a debased, cowardly, and pusilanimous shame. My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined. Lord have mercy on us.
Edit: Paragraph 12 states "For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment." This is wildly out of line with the Catholic Faith. This is essentially a works-based salvation. The more I go back and re-read DI, the worse it gets.
Paragraph 34: "Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances."
This is the language we use when describing intrinsic moral evils.
But counter to the claim that Pope Francis has declared that the death penalty is “always morally wrong in every single instance, regardless of any circumstances,” it always must be pointed out that Pope Francis actually hasn’t said anything of the sort. He appears to believe it was permissible at one time, but no longer is.
Contrast that with Pope John Paul II, who actually did state that slavery—a long tolerated practice for the Church—actually was “intrinsically evil” in Veritatis Splendor paragraph 80.
What? Go read the updated CCC 2267, and read paragraph 34 of DI. More importantly, the development of the slavery quertion progressed fundamentally differently than capital punishment.
1) The Church began with an understanding that slavery was not harmonious with the Christian ideal (even considering that ancient slavery was in many ways not at all analogous with 17th-19th century "chattel slavery"), and this initial principle quickly developed into the total rejection of all forms of ownership over humans as mere commidity and/or property; it was never "long-tolerated," and the Church's opposition to slavery often put it at contentious odds with many political powers in the 17th-19th century. In short, on slavery the Church went from "it's bad" to "it's VERY bad," as opposed to the death penalty, wherein the Church has gone from "yes, it can be acceptable and fine" to "no it's actually NEVER acceptable" (even the Council of Trent magisterially reaffirmed the right of political authorities to administer capital punishment - 'lawful slaying' - when circumstantially prudent).
2) The idea of "increasing awareness" found in CCC 2267 insinuates that the morality of the death penalty didn't change (after all, human dignity exists and is the same whether it's 1224AD or 2024AD), but rather that the Magisterium is just now figuring this out in the past 30 years; thus, the natural implication is that the Church authoritatively taught grave moral error for around 1,990 years and that even an Ecumenical Council (Trent) taught grave moral error in violation of the Fifth Commandment and the very Light of the Gospel itself.
Human dignity never changes, it's universal across time and space. To declare magisterially that the death penalty is universally wrong because it violates the unchanging and universal principle of human dignity (as opposed to "case-by-case based on changes circumstances") means that retroactively it was always wrong to begin with. This is the necessary conclusion.
But I don't see how CCC 2267 or Paragraph 34 of DI contradict what I said. The death penalty was once an acceptable practice, but in the modern world no longer is. I think you draw the wrong conclusion with your final argument on human dignity. For example: war violates human dignity, but there are times when war is nevertheless justified. Lethal self-defense could be similarly said to violate human dignity, but nevertheless there are times when it is justified. So I'm not sure that it is a "necessary conclusion" that the death penalty was always retroactively wrong to begin with (especially since we never hear the Vatican actually condemning it as "immoral" or "wrong").
1. Re: slavery. In 1866, a June 20, 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office stated that "servitus ipsa per se et absolute considerata iuri naturali et divino minime repugnat" (Slavery itself, considered in itself and absolutely isn't repugnant to the divine and natural law). However, Pope John Paul II, in paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor, states:
"Hi sunt actus, qui a morali Ecclesiae traditione “intrinsece malum” vocati sunt: tales semper per se, id est sunt ob ipsum eorum obiectum nulla agentis eiusque aliorum adiunctorum ratione habita... Concilium Vaticanum II, in contextu de obsequio quod humanae debetur personae, amplum talium actuum exemplum exhibet: ... servitus"
("There are acts which by the moral tradition of the Church are called 'intrinsically evil': Such acts are always in themselves--that is they are on account of their very object--with there being no reason to be had for them from the actor or the other circumstances . . . The Second Vatican Council, in the context of the respect which is owed to the human person, produces a full example of such acts: [within a list of such acts, it lists] slavery."
So we have an Instruction of the Holy Office (signed off by Pope Pius IX), which states that slavery (servitus) is not against the divine and natural law (i.e., it can be tolerated), and then we have Pope John Paul II writing that slavery (servitus) is intrinsically immoral (i.e., it cannot be tolerated whatsoever). That appears to be a much more direct contradiction than anything that Pope Francis has said.
2. The death penalty itself. I think there's a similar trajectory between the death penalty and slavery in the Church's mind. The death penalty was not looked upon kindly by the earliest Christians. We have St. Augustine in A.D. 409 urging civil magistrates "to forget that [they] have the power of capital punishment" and in A.D. 866 we have Pope Nicholas I writing in response to a civil power concerned with its use of the death penalty that "just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death." It was in the later medieval and baroque periods that we see a greater tolerance for the death penalty on the part of the Church.
And in the talk of "increasing awareness," I think that Pope Francis is in conversation with Aquinas there. Aquinas famously grounds his argument that it is licit for the state to kill sinners because, through their sin, the sinner falls from their human dignity ("decidit a dignitate humana"). Pope Francis seems to argue against the view that human dignity is totally lost by sin, and that the sinner--even the capital sinner--retains that human dignity. This seems to be the "increasing awareness" of human dignity that the Catechism speaks of.
Yes, I think it provides a serious basis for those who disagree with the Church to dive deep into meanings and where they come from. The Church attacks error from a less defensive position, and instead tries in every way to help individuals discover their dignity in God's image, exactly as they were created.
It would seem that there is a correlation between slavery and the "death penalty."
It is clear that slavery cannot be held to be <em>semper et pro semper</em> intrinsically evil. It finds direct support in the Old Testament, and fairly robust - if indirect - support in the New Testament - primarily the Pauline corpus.
However, I doubt anyone would argue that it is "inadmissible" - in any form - in the 21st century. That doesn't mean it isn't taking place in the world right now, just that it can no longer find any moral justification in the Catholic (or even Christian) Church.
So there is a clear precedent for finding that something can - for almost all intents and purposes - become intrinsically evil with the passage of time.
The phrase that comes to my mind (with regard to any question of "why was this permitted") is "because of the hardness of your hearts" and then I have to go sit in a corner and think about the hardness of my heart.
What do you mean that something "become intrinsically evil"? Isn't that what the whole debate is about?
For me personally, to take the death penalty as an example, I have no issue with a vatican/papal clarification that given the wealth of modern societies and availability of alternative punishments / methods of social safety, the death penalty should never be used. This is essentially what the 1994 catechism says, as I read it.
But to declare it is "intrinsically evil" closes the door to possibilities that we can scarcely imagine today, such as castaways on a desert island (unable to construct and man a prison), the collapse of society, settlers on an extra-planetary mission etc. These have been real-world situations in the past, and may well be again in the future.
It strikes me (not a theologian) as ridiculous for anyone (pope or otherwise) to try to move bar from "no typical situations today pass prudential muster" (e.g. JPII 1994 CCC) to "intrinsically evil".
Human dignity is essential to understanding holiness because holiness is about becoming everything the creator made you for. I think today’s document very much harkens back to a renewal of Aquinas’ original methods. “ It is important to note that contrary to claims otherwise, Thomas Aquinas never used or developed the concept of intrinsic evil. In fact, it was never used in the thirteenth century.” (Keenan in his book on history of Catholic theological ethics). As far as slavery, the development in doctrine was due to a passing from its understanding as a “given naturalness” to “unnatural mess” in light of human dignity.
I'm just trying to understand what you are addressing with your comment here.
Are you saying that "intrinsically evil" should never be a category we use to determine the morality of particular actions? Or possibly that in your opinion Stephen McGinnis meant to use different terminology?
I never mentioned human dignity, or holiness, or Aquinas' methods, or slavery, so I'm trying to understand what exactly you are responding to.
I was trying to ask Stephen about his combination of the words "become" and "intrinsic": it seems to me that they can't accurately be used together in that way, but perhaps my understanding of "intrinsic" isn't correct.
Agreed. My apologies for appearing to oppose your comment. Moral theology much more often contemplates naturalness vs unnaturalness. That’s the debate surrounding the death penalty right now. Very regularly and historically the term intrinsic is often totally misapplied. There was, for a very long time in Catholic history, an idea that self-pleasure was more grave than forcible sex with a woman. We had disassociated the word intrinsic from virtue vs. vice and simply attached it to ends.
I really can't sympathize with the toleration of slavery, but in order to attempt charity for prior eras that had slavery, here goes.
The question of slavery mainly depends on whether there is any legal protection of slaves and what form it takes. If there is zero legal protection of slaves, there's a higher correlation with capital punishment.
However there have been societies that governed slavery with laws. That starts putting it on a continuum with prison labor and indentured servitude.
A quick scan of secular headlines about the document emphasize the negative stance on gender mutilation surgery (my words), so that is promising. Our culture needs more wake up calls about the trans lunacy. I’m pleasantly surprised by the tone of the document but have not fully digested it yet. Thanks for the quick coverage!
People genuinely suffer and it is not "lunacy" ... it is suffering and your word choice is dismissive of their suffering. No compassion for their struggles? You seem to just want them to change so you can be comfortable. Are they lost? Are they asleep? Maybe, but that's just our desire to be at ease with ourselves, it doesn't really address them and their struggles. As with all of God's people, they are to be loved and shown compassion.
If society got rid of its stereotypes of male and female, and acknowledged that if you're a member of one sex how you act and feel is how members of that sex act and feel because you are one of them, I think most of the trans stuff would disappear.
God made people male and female. However, other than in terms of sexuality, gender roles are primarily cultural rather than innate. For instance, sports programs for young children open to members of both sexes may help all of the children to develop skills they otherwise might not have. The same goes for many skills in the trades. And if one finds oneself doing work previously confined to members of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean one is the wrong sex but that society's ideas about what is fit for a member of that sex is simply wrong.
I think both you and Aaron are correct. I think there is more than prejudice at play with norms for male and female behavior, but norms that are excessively rigid and externally imposed can be harmful to both men and women. Leonard Sax's book Why Gender Matters is a really fascinating book on the differences between male and female brains and bodies. The version I read predates a lot of the trans stuff coming into the mainstream, but the chapters on non-conforming boys and girls may have been the most interesting. (Though fair warning, the chapter on sex was heartbreaking, and that was before everyone could get porn instantly on a smartphone.)
Hi Sherri. I appreciate your unfailing aim to treat all people with love. In GB's defense, I think GB may have been referring to the ideology, it's massive funding sources, and the academic hegemony which promotes transgenderism to young people. In my work as a hospital chaplain I encounter young people every day who are not genuinely dysphoric, but assume trans, "identities" because it is, "cool" and because it gives them social standing and immense currency as members of a protected, admired and, "brave and special" social class. These benefits, when mixed with mental health issues and early life trauma or neglect, often morph into deeper forms of destruction, alienation, anger, and finally, mutilation and sterilization. The long-term costs cannot be over-stated. The percentage of people with actual body/sex dysmorphia is staggeringly low, while what we're mostly seeing now can be attributed to social contagion, indoctrination, and basic youthful desires to, "fit in" and be, "cool". I suspect this is what GB meant with the phrase, "trans lunacy". Also, the medical establishment has given up all credibility in their wholesale dive into offering hormones, blockers and surgeries to young people with almost zero evidence of medical benefit. Europe is banning these things everywhere because the science shows the treatments cause harm, not help. A new study from California just showed that suicides increase, rather than decrease, when young people are subjected to, "gender affirming care".
Has it been taught by the Magisterium before that human dignity is *infinite*? I see that the document refers to a talk given by St. JPII to a group of people with disabilities when it introduces the phrase (the title) in the 7th paragraph of the introductory "Presentation" note. Was the phrase not present in prior written magisterial documents? I'm at work and haven't had time to read the whole thing. (Thanks Pillar for the analysis!)
It's a weird phrase. The next line says "inalienable," which was my first thought of what the author was trying to get across, so that's not what infinite means. "Non-diminishable" would also make sense, or even "perfect." I have no idea what this word means in this context though. The plain meaning would be "without limit" and could be read to mean that every human is equal in dignity to God (or even of greater dignity than God).
Thanks for this running commentary - very helpful! The doc definitely has good points, and allays some "nervousness' I felt when I heard it was coming out. But it's such a cursory overview that I'm not sure of its exact purpose. I'd also be interested to know how *this* list was determined. I agree with another commentor that IVF (and possibly contraception) should've been considered. In all honesty, I'd love a document that treated infertility in a broader, more pastoral way, rather than focusing strictly on moral/immoral "solutions." If we acknowledge the very good desire for children and the pain and isolation caused when couples face infertility, so many faithful couples would feel seen and loved by the Church. The current debate around IVF - and the disturbing way it's being cast as "prolife" - presents an opportunity to accompany couples, affirm and uplift their marriages, and see them for the witness they offer to the Church and the world.
I think we all owe a big debt of gratitude to The Pillar for this very insightful commentary on this document. I, for one, am pleased for what I’m seeing so far (having not had to read it directly myself just yet).
It’s worth contrasting the fact The Pillar’s reporting with, say, a certain high profile priest (do I even need to mention the name?) whose earliest tweets on the document included a link to a NYT’s “pearl clutcher” of an article.
It’s great that we have a resource including such great insights from churchmen and not just “journalists.”
Does the document come out and proclaim that motherhood is a positive good? I seem to remember when "being open to a culture of life" was considered essential -- now I don't see that being stated anywhere. What is very clear is that gender ideology emanates from the feminist power structures of the universities and the teachers unions and reflects a hatred and animosity toward motherhood. From the Pelosi-controlled House trying to eliminate the term "mother" from the lexicon and feminist-dominated Hollywood ridiculing mothers, there is a war on motherhood under the guise of gender (you can't rid the world of femininity unless you pretend gender does not exist). Last Mother's Day there were even pieces from feminists talking about how proclaiming Mothers Day was even patriarchal. The all-encompassing feminist war on the "Patriarchy" is really just the war on motherhood. The most celebrated human being in history is likely the Virgin Mary -- the exemplar for all but surely the archetype of femininity and motherhood and the foundation of the family. Thinkers like Chesterton and Kart Stern suggested respect for femininity and motherhood was the very foundation of Western Civilization and philosophy and emanated from the role of the Virgin Mary. Mary's cultural influence is seen in chivalry (i.e., the millionaires stepping aside for lower income women and going down on the Titanic) and the enhanced respect for women in western society. "Second wave" feminism was the sexual revolution which undermined western sexual ethics designed to protect women (and mothers) from abuse. With the collapse of the birthrate, is anyone standing up for mothers?
I share a lot of your sentiment but don’t think Rome is particularly aware of social and political happenings in the United States so they don’t try to address them. The lack of a relational element (or at least something other than just commenting on the physical body) in Church teaching on dignity has led to a credibility crisis in many areas of the world. But not here, at least not yet.
Nothing is objectionable in that section but it does not address the affirmation of the value of motherhood and "being open to a culture of life" type formulation. No one really objects to "choice" but the issue is what is preferable. The feminist depiction of motherhood is patriarchal bondage and no one seems to be stepping up to challenge that. Older generations of women would have considered it borderline insane to skip the great "adventure" of family (in Chesterton's formulation) for a life of corporate, government or even church bureaucracy. (The underlying issue of the synod really seems to opening up church governance to women so they are not "stuck" with "lower value" motherhood.) As C.S. Lewis noted, the preeminent career is homemaker with everything else being second-tier. And as Fulton Sheen reportedly noted, the opposite of Marxism is not capitalism but motherhood. This perspective is backed by "science." Harvard published an 85 yearlong study last year of a control group to determine what makes people happy and determined (shockingly) its relationships -- and the most intense relationships have to be mother-child. The more interesting question to me is why the alienation from motherhood -- and why is it so worldwide.
This idea was pervasive as I grew up, and it's only been since I became a mother myself that I have been willing to admit to myself that I can enjoy stereotypically feminine things and still be a smart person. It's deranged. I hope my daughters (and sons) learn better.
As I just noted in another comment, Harvard published a study that confirms what older generations of women understood intuitively -- that prioritizing relationships is the key to contentment. Looking back, I had women in my family that never married and were very successful professionally but they sacrificed for the broader family -- and were very happy in their lives. As were the devoted mothers. (But they all considered feminism to be essentially narcissism.) Chesterton noted that women have always controlled the culture and are (or at least were) the common-sense philosophers. If you look at Hollywood it seems to confirm this view -- Hollywood immediately flipped to support second wave feminism (aka the sexual revolution) but then flipped on a dime a few years ago with the feminst led #metoo movement which is an implicit rejection of the sexual revolution). The more interesting question is why the alienation from motherhood and why is the Church seemingly silent. Women leaders in the Church (based on the synod) are seemingly feminists and don't seem to be promoting motherhood. Again, why? Who knows for sure but older generations would probably say its the spiritual and psychological wreckage of the sexual revolution. Those rules were designed to protect women in particular as sexual abuse destroyed femininity. For men, it seems to have the effect of destroying moral authority.
The enemy hates motherhood (the general outlines of this fact seem evident to me but the details of why are unclear, and might not be productive to think about anyway, except as a sort of backwards examination of conscience.)
I do suspect that the answer does not lie in ideology but ultimately in the confessional and the Eucharist. Ideology emerges from culture and culture emerges from the interplay of virtue and vice. The Eucharist and the Confessional are what lead to a healthy culture.
Thank you for your reporting! I find myself relieved to hear that the document seems to just straightforwardly teach Catholic anthropology. It will be interesting to see how the secular press decides to headline this
What is in the footnotes?
The footnotes of Dignitatis Infinata? Shocker, it's 95% self-references to Pope Francis. We've gone from a "Hermeneutic of Continuity with the entire 2,000 years of the Church" to a "Hermeneutic solely of Francis' Pontificate"
That is not accurate. The footnotes DO reference other things that the Holy Father has said, but there are many, many references to recent popes - Leo XIII and forward - and many other works besides.
Pope John Paul II regularly referenced himself in footnotes and in actual texts of homilies and speeches. Not unprecedented at all.
I think close readers will notice lots of these similarities in how Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis worked and thought, in contrast to Benedict XVI.
This is an excellent framing of Catholic social teaching that helps us graduate away from yes/no answers and instead put doctrine in the context of moral theology. In the 13th century, Catholic theology understood human dignity as relative to his/her place in social status, believing that God would have brought people into the world in different forms (female, disabled) if they were capable of authority. We've moved forward, and see that the forms God gives us reflect the image of God and universal dignity. It allows us to move into deeper questions about how we respond to a changing world. How do we orient our entire lives toward God and do so in communion with one another. Great document.
Isn't every moral question a “yes/no”? Even in applying pastoral circumstances to a situation, the ultimate point of engaging moral theology is to come to a yes/no answer for a particular action to take in that situation.
It sounds like you're accusing medieval moral theology with temporal relativism, and “ableism.“ But no, not everything in the medieval period was based on social class.
Are there really “deeper questions“ that we are only uncovering now? I really don't know of any new questions. Humanity is the same and its circumstances – including oral contraception – do not change its nature.
The coverage we are reading here makes clear that DI completely rejects moral relativism.
Absolutely never tarnish a saint let alone Aquinas. He should be credited with taking entirely stagnant conversations and moving them forward in profound and meaningful ways no one else was capable of. Not to mention, he didn't want to freeze theology he wanted the next generation to continue growing deeper in their understanding of theology. He left us methods to do that. Here is an article on the 13th century theological developments in this field from a professor at a university named for Aquinas: https://jmt.scholasticahq.com/article/18891-the-evolution-of-human-dignity-in-catholic-morality
I am not certain that we have "moved forward" per se. We have definitely moved in some direction (along the x axis and/or y axis), but I don't think that in the Church militant we are either collectively or on average *more holy* today than in the 13th century, and holiness (z axis) is the only forward that there is. (A counterargument could be made that "closer to the second coming" is the only forward that there is, which I concede, but then we are always moving forward. A consoling thought. I would like to see Jesus.)
Theology is definitely seeing a renewal of Aquinas in a couple of senses. To an extent we had set aside his methods for a few centuries in order to create “clarity” and avoid allowing the faithful to become confused wresting with conscience. The most notable is that in the 17th century up until post WWII the way we taught natural law that reduced it badly, and dis-integrated inclination toward virtues. Perhaps as a reaction to Protestantism, we started chasing after sin, seeking justice without recourse to peculiarities or whole of the situation. Oversimplifying and without looking into the merits of the claims in this comment, it reached a breaking point after two world wars of European bishops pitted their flocks against the, both telling the faithful it was a just and holy war. The document today reflects some of that advancing forward in Theology, where we allow the principle of human dignity to inform how we orient our lives. Rather than simply looking to zap error. In this comment, I’m thinking by to a 2011 article by Daniel Daly.
Odd that the document fails to mention contraception or 'Humane vitae.'
Seems like a deliberate choice given the topics apparently covered.
But I haven't read the whole thing myself yet.
Contraception and IVF both could have easily found a place in the document as violations of human dignity, since there were closely related themes. It’s pretty disappointing, given how widespread such practices are reported to be, even among Christians. Does IVF not deserve to be mentioned (apart from the related act of surrogacy) as a form of human trafficking? There is also a similar gap next to the part condemning the mistreatment of people on the basis of sexual orientation. What of the reinterpretation of marriage in the West? These are all attacks on the dignity of the human person that are probably within the personal experience of many Catholics. These are all real and unfortunate lacunae in the document, even as many other things are perfectly fine.
Honestly, in five years of drafting contraception and IVF never came up as apt topics?
It is a rhetorical question - we all know the answer!
I think it actually helps bolster the credibility of HV. We very very rarely dive into theological discussions on sex in American Catholicism beyond structures. But outside of the USA, the theological views of HV are suffering because it only contemplates the structural elements of sex (as it it’s exclusively an exchange of body parts). DI clearly says you can’t look at the relational and psychological in order to discount the structural. That shuts the widest door that opponents of HV have.
I'd need to read it myself, but I dare say that this "smells" more of Francis than it does of Tucho. It sounds more like what Pope Francis actually believes regarding gender theory and Catholic anthropology than what people and the popular press say he thinks.
We've seen repeatedly that Pope Francis condemns gender theory and abortion - this sounds in line with that.
Appreciate the live analysis. Hopefully we'll also see a more typical overview of the document at some point.
Keep scrolling past the live analysis, and you'll find what I think you're looking for -- a reported summary. Unless you mean something else?
Thank you. My reading comprehension apparently wasn't up to par on this Monday morning.
It happens!
The summary has a typo as of Tuesday morning: Dignitas infinita explained … made in the image of God, its believe that Christ
Should be “belief”
1) DI has only reinforced my understadning that the Church has formally reversed on, and defected from, its teaching on the Death Penalty. People need to stop this idea that "oh, but he didn't say the magic words 'intrinsic moral evil'!" when it's clear that, time and time again, Francis has declared that the act is always morally wrong in every single instance, regardless of any circumstances, and because it violates an unchanging and fundamental principle of intrinsic human dignity.
2) Depite all the paragraphs on gender ideology, DI never actually condemns transgender ideology or gender transitions. The best that it manages to do is frame it alongside a non-transgender anthropology, making the two appear simply coexistent though discordant. And sex-change operations are apparently not wrong, they merely only "*RISK* threatening the unique dignity" of the person (i.e. sex-change surgeries and HRT and other methods of transitioning only possess the *possibility* of maybe perhaps possibly being wrong in some instances, but that's not necessarily always the case apparently).
What a shame - what a debased, cowardly, and pusilanimous shame. My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined. Lord have mercy on us.
Edit: Paragraph 12 states "For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment." This is wildly out of line with the Catholic Faith. This is essentially a works-based salvation. The more I go back and re-read DI, the worse it gets.
I was expecting DI to condemn the death penalty more vigorously than the changed phrasing in the CCC. Was it in DI? I didn't see it in the coverage.
Paragraph 34: "Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances."
This is the language we use when describing intrinsic moral evils.
But counter to the claim that Pope Francis has declared that the death penalty is “always morally wrong in every single instance, regardless of any circumstances,” it always must be pointed out that Pope Francis actually hasn’t said anything of the sort. He appears to believe it was permissible at one time, but no longer is.
Contrast that with Pope John Paul II, who actually did state that slavery—a long tolerated practice for the Church—actually was “intrinsically evil” in Veritatis Splendor paragraph 80.
What? Go read the updated CCC 2267, and read paragraph 34 of DI. More importantly, the development of the slavery quertion progressed fundamentally differently than capital punishment.
1) The Church began with an understanding that slavery was not harmonious with the Christian ideal (even considering that ancient slavery was in many ways not at all analogous with 17th-19th century "chattel slavery"), and this initial principle quickly developed into the total rejection of all forms of ownership over humans as mere commidity and/or property; it was never "long-tolerated," and the Church's opposition to slavery often put it at contentious odds with many political powers in the 17th-19th century. In short, on slavery the Church went from "it's bad" to "it's VERY bad," as opposed to the death penalty, wherein the Church has gone from "yes, it can be acceptable and fine" to "no it's actually NEVER acceptable" (even the Council of Trent magisterially reaffirmed the right of political authorities to administer capital punishment - 'lawful slaying' - when circumstantially prudent).
2) The idea of "increasing awareness" found in CCC 2267 insinuates that the morality of the death penalty didn't change (after all, human dignity exists and is the same whether it's 1224AD or 2024AD), but rather that the Magisterium is just now figuring this out in the past 30 years; thus, the natural implication is that the Church authoritatively taught grave moral error for around 1,990 years and that even an Ecumenical Council (Trent) taught grave moral error in violation of the Fifth Commandment and the very Light of the Gospel itself.
Human dignity never changes, it's universal across time and space. To declare magisterially that the death penalty is universally wrong because it violates the unchanging and universal principle of human dignity (as opposed to "case-by-case based on changes circumstances") means that retroactively it was always wrong to begin with. This is the necessary conclusion.
But I don't see how CCC 2267 or Paragraph 34 of DI contradict what I said. The death penalty was once an acceptable practice, but in the modern world no longer is. I think you draw the wrong conclusion with your final argument on human dignity. For example: war violates human dignity, but there are times when war is nevertheless justified. Lethal self-defense could be similarly said to violate human dignity, but nevertheless there are times when it is justified. So I'm not sure that it is a "necessary conclusion" that the death penalty was always retroactively wrong to begin with (especially since we never hear the Vatican actually condemning it as "immoral" or "wrong").
1. Re: slavery. In 1866, a June 20, 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office stated that "servitus ipsa per se et absolute considerata iuri naturali et divino minime repugnat" (Slavery itself, considered in itself and absolutely isn't repugnant to the divine and natural law). However, Pope John Paul II, in paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor, states:
"Hi sunt actus, qui a morali Ecclesiae traditione “intrinsece malum” vocati sunt: tales semper per se, id est sunt ob ipsum eorum obiectum nulla agentis eiusque aliorum adiunctorum ratione habita... Concilium Vaticanum II, in contextu de obsequio quod humanae debetur personae, amplum talium actuum exemplum exhibet: ... servitus"
("There are acts which by the moral tradition of the Church are called 'intrinsically evil': Such acts are always in themselves--that is they are on account of their very object--with there being no reason to be had for them from the actor or the other circumstances . . . The Second Vatican Council, in the context of the respect which is owed to the human person, produces a full example of such acts: [within a list of such acts, it lists] slavery."
So we have an Instruction of the Holy Office (signed off by Pope Pius IX), which states that slavery (servitus) is not against the divine and natural law (i.e., it can be tolerated), and then we have Pope John Paul II writing that slavery (servitus) is intrinsically immoral (i.e., it cannot be tolerated whatsoever). That appears to be a much more direct contradiction than anything that Pope Francis has said.
2. The death penalty itself. I think there's a similar trajectory between the death penalty and slavery in the Church's mind. The death penalty was not looked upon kindly by the earliest Christians. We have St. Augustine in A.D. 409 urging civil magistrates "to forget that [they] have the power of capital punishment" and in A.D. 866 we have Pope Nicholas I writing in response to a civil power concerned with its use of the death penalty that "just as Christ led you back from the eternal death in which you were gripped, to eternal life, so you yourself should attempt to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from the end of death." It was in the later medieval and baroque periods that we see a greater tolerance for the death penalty on the part of the Church.
And in the talk of "increasing awareness," I think that Pope Francis is in conversation with Aquinas there. Aquinas famously grounds his argument that it is licit for the state to kill sinners because, through their sin, the sinner falls from their human dignity ("decidit a dignitate humana"). Pope Francis seems to argue against the view that human dignity is totally lost by sin, and that the sinner--even the capital sinner--retains that human dignity. This seems to be the "increasing awareness" of human dignity that the Catechism speaks of.
Just read the document. Quite a well-rounded work!
I especially liked articles 55-60.
Yes, I think it provides a serious basis for those who disagree with the Church to dive deep into meanings and where they come from. The Church attacks error from a less defensive position, and instead tries in every way to help individuals discover their dignity in God's image, exactly as they were created.
Love this way of unspooling the document! Thank you!!!
It would seem that there is a correlation between slavery and the "death penalty."
It is clear that slavery cannot be held to be <em>semper et pro semper</em> intrinsically evil. It finds direct support in the Old Testament, and fairly robust - if indirect - support in the New Testament - primarily the Pauline corpus.
However, I doubt anyone would argue that it is "inadmissible" - in any form - in the 21st century. That doesn't mean it isn't taking place in the world right now, just that it can no longer find any moral justification in the Catholic (or even Christian) Church.
So there is a clear precedent for finding that something can - for almost all intents and purposes - become intrinsically evil with the passage of time.
The phrase that comes to my mind (with regard to any question of "why was this permitted") is "because of the hardness of your hearts" and then I have to go sit in a corner and think about the hardness of my heart.
What do you mean that something "become intrinsically evil"? Isn't that what the whole debate is about?
For me personally, to take the death penalty as an example, I have no issue with a vatican/papal clarification that given the wealth of modern societies and availability of alternative punishments / methods of social safety, the death penalty should never be used. This is essentially what the 1994 catechism says, as I read it.
But to declare it is "intrinsically evil" closes the door to possibilities that we can scarcely imagine today, such as castaways on a desert island (unable to construct and man a prison), the collapse of society, settlers on an extra-planetary mission etc. These have been real-world situations in the past, and may well be again in the future.
It strikes me (not a theologian) as ridiculous for anyone (pope or otherwise) to try to move bar from "no typical situations today pass prudential muster" (e.g. JPII 1994 CCC) to "intrinsically evil".
Human dignity is essential to understanding holiness because holiness is about becoming everything the creator made you for. I think today’s document very much harkens back to a renewal of Aquinas’ original methods. “ It is important to note that contrary to claims otherwise, Thomas Aquinas never used or developed the concept of intrinsic evil. In fact, it was never used in the thirteenth century.” (Keenan in his book on history of Catholic theological ethics). As far as slavery, the development in doctrine was due to a passing from its understanding as a “given naturalness” to “unnatural mess” in light of human dignity.
Hi,
I'm just trying to understand what you are addressing with your comment here.
Are you saying that "intrinsically evil" should never be a category we use to determine the morality of particular actions? Or possibly that in your opinion Stephen McGinnis meant to use different terminology?
I never mentioned human dignity, or holiness, or Aquinas' methods, or slavery, so I'm trying to understand what exactly you are responding to.
I was trying to ask Stephen about his combination of the words "become" and "intrinsic": it seems to me that they can't accurately be used together in that way, but perhaps my understanding of "intrinsic" isn't correct.
Agreed. My apologies for appearing to oppose your comment. Moral theology much more often contemplates naturalness vs unnaturalness. That’s the debate surrounding the death penalty right now. Very regularly and historically the term intrinsic is often totally misapplied. There was, for a very long time in Catholic history, an idea that self-pleasure was more grave than forcible sex with a woman. We had disassociated the word intrinsic from virtue vs. vice and simply attached it to ends.
I really can't sympathize with the toleration of slavery, but in order to attempt charity for prior eras that had slavery, here goes.
The question of slavery mainly depends on whether there is any legal protection of slaves and what form it takes. If there is zero legal protection of slaves, there's a higher correlation with capital punishment.
However there have been societies that governed slavery with laws. That starts putting it on a continuum with prison labor and indentured servitude.
A quick scan of secular headlines about the document emphasize the negative stance on gender mutilation surgery (my words), so that is promising. Our culture needs more wake up calls about the trans lunacy. I’m pleasantly surprised by the tone of the document but have not fully digested it yet. Thanks for the quick coverage!
"trans lunacy"
People genuinely suffer and it is not "lunacy" ... it is suffering and your word choice is dismissive of their suffering. No compassion for their struggles? You seem to just want them to change so you can be comfortable. Are they lost? Are they asleep? Maybe, but that's just our desire to be at ease with ourselves, it doesn't really address them and their struggles. As with all of God's people, they are to be loved and shown compassion.
If society got rid of its stereotypes of male and female, and acknowledged that if you're a member of one sex how you act and feel is how members of that sex act and feel because you are one of them, I think most of the trans stuff would disappear.
God made people male and female. However, other than in terms of sexuality, gender roles are primarily cultural rather than innate. For instance, sports programs for young children open to members of both sexes may help all of the children to develop skills they otherwise might not have. The same goes for many skills in the trades. And if one finds oneself doing work previously confined to members of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean one is the wrong sex but that society's ideas about what is fit for a member of that sex is simply wrong.
I think both you and Aaron are correct. I think there is more than prejudice at play with norms for male and female behavior, but norms that are excessively rigid and externally imposed can be harmful to both men and women. Leonard Sax's book Why Gender Matters is a really fascinating book on the differences between male and female brains and bodies. The version I read predates a lot of the trans stuff coming into the mainstream, but the chapters on non-conforming boys and girls may have been the most interesting. (Though fair warning, the chapter on sex was heartbreaking, and that was before everyone could get porn instantly on a smartphone.)
Hi Sherri. I appreciate your unfailing aim to treat all people with love. In GB's defense, I think GB may have been referring to the ideology, it's massive funding sources, and the academic hegemony which promotes transgenderism to young people. In my work as a hospital chaplain I encounter young people every day who are not genuinely dysphoric, but assume trans, "identities" because it is, "cool" and because it gives them social standing and immense currency as members of a protected, admired and, "brave and special" social class. These benefits, when mixed with mental health issues and early life trauma or neglect, often morph into deeper forms of destruction, alienation, anger, and finally, mutilation and sterilization. The long-term costs cannot be over-stated. The percentage of people with actual body/sex dysmorphia is staggeringly low, while what we're mostly seeing now can be attributed to social contagion, indoctrination, and basic youthful desires to, "fit in" and be, "cool". I suspect this is what GB meant with the phrase, "trans lunacy". Also, the medical establishment has given up all credibility in their wholesale dive into offering hormones, blockers and surgeries to young people with almost zero evidence of medical benefit. Europe is banning these things everywhere because the science shows the treatments cause harm, not help. A new study from California just showed that suicides increase, rather than decrease, when young people are subjected to, "gender affirming care".
My thoughts exactly
Has it been taught by the Magisterium before that human dignity is *infinite*? I see that the document refers to a talk given by St. JPII to a group of people with disabilities when it introduces the phrase (the title) in the 7th paragraph of the introductory "Presentation" note. Was the phrase not present in prior written magisterial documents? I'm at work and haven't had time to read the whole thing. (Thanks Pillar for the analysis!)
It's a weird phrase. The next line says "inalienable," which was my first thought of what the author was trying to get across, so that's not what infinite means. "Non-diminishable" would also make sense, or even "perfect." I have no idea what this word means in this context though. The plain meaning would be "without limit" and could be read to mean that every human is equal in dignity to God (or even of greater dignity than God).
Was wondering this myself, and how we should interpret it.
Thanks for this running commentary - very helpful! The doc definitely has good points, and allays some "nervousness' I felt when I heard it was coming out. But it's such a cursory overview that I'm not sure of its exact purpose. I'd also be interested to know how *this* list was determined. I agree with another commentor that IVF (and possibly contraception) should've been considered. In all honesty, I'd love a document that treated infertility in a broader, more pastoral way, rather than focusing strictly on moral/immoral "solutions." If we acknowledge the very good desire for children and the pain and isolation caused when couples face infertility, so many faithful couples would feel seen and loved by the Church. The current debate around IVF - and the disturbing way it's being cast as "prolife" - presents an opportunity to accompany couples, affirm and uplift their marriages, and see them for the witness they offer to the Church and the world.
Perhaps if artificial contraception was removed from the environment as a form of pollution many such couples would find themselves expecting a child.
49 includes a condemnation of IVF in its discussion of surrogacy.
Please turn this into a post on TL;DR
I think we all owe a big debt of gratitude to The Pillar for this very insightful commentary on this document. I, for one, am pleased for what I’m seeing so far (having not had to read it directly myself just yet).
It’s worth contrasting the fact The Pillar’s reporting with, say, a certain high profile priest (do I even need to mention the name?) whose earliest tweets on the document included a link to a NYT’s “pearl clutcher” of an article.
It’s great that we have a resource including such great insights from churchmen and not just “journalists.”
Does the document come out and proclaim that motherhood is a positive good? I seem to remember when "being open to a culture of life" was considered essential -- now I don't see that being stated anywhere. What is very clear is that gender ideology emanates from the feminist power structures of the universities and the teachers unions and reflects a hatred and animosity toward motherhood. From the Pelosi-controlled House trying to eliminate the term "mother" from the lexicon and feminist-dominated Hollywood ridiculing mothers, there is a war on motherhood under the guise of gender (you can't rid the world of femininity unless you pretend gender does not exist). Last Mother's Day there were even pieces from feminists talking about how proclaiming Mothers Day was even patriarchal. The all-encompassing feminist war on the "Patriarchy" is really just the war on motherhood. The most celebrated human being in history is likely the Virgin Mary -- the exemplar for all but surely the archetype of femininity and motherhood and the foundation of the family. Thinkers like Chesterton and Kart Stern suggested respect for femininity and motherhood was the very foundation of Western Civilization and philosophy and emanated from the role of the Virgin Mary. Mary's cultural influence is seen in chivalry (i.e., the millionaires stepping aside for lower income women and going down on the Titanic) and the enhanced respect for women in western society. "Second wave" feminism was the sexual revolution which undermined western sexual ethics designed to protect women (and mothers) from abuse. With the collapse of the birthrate, is anyone standing up for mothers?
I share a lot of your sentiment but don’t think Rome is particularly aware of social and political happenings in the United States so they don’t try to address them. The lack of a relational element (or at least something other than just commenting on the physical body) in Church teaching on dignity has led to a credibility crisis in many areas of the world. But not here, at least not yet.
See 45 in the section on violence against women, where it quotes Pope St. John Paul the Great.
Nothing is objectionable in that section but it does not address the affirmation of the value of motherhood and "being open to a culture of life" type formulation. No one really objects to "choice" but the issue is what is preferable. The feminist depiction of motherhood is patriarchal bondage and no one seems to be stepping up to challenge that. Older generations of women would have considered it borderline insane to skip the great "adventure" of family (in Chesterton's formulation) for a life of corporate, government or even church bureaucracy. (The underlying issue of the synod really seems to opening up church governance to women so they are not "stuck" with "lower value" motherhood.) As C.S. Lewis noted, the preeminent career is homemaker with everything else being second-tier. And as Fulton Sheen reportedly noted, the opposite of Marxism is not capitalism but motherhood. This perspective is backed by "science." Harvard published an 85 yearlong study last year of a control group to determine what makes people happy and determined (shockingly) its relationships -- and the most intense relationships have to be mother-child. The more interesting question to me is why the alienation from motherhood -- and why is it so worldwide.
Except that the Church has always considered a life of celibacy for God to be greater than the married state.
Most of those celibate men and women still serve as spiritual fathers and mothers.
This idea was pervasive as I grew up, and it's only been since I became a mother myself that I have been willing to admit to myself that I can enjoy stereotypically feminine things and still be a smart person. It's deranged. I hope my daughters (and sons) learn better.
As I just noted in another comment, Harvard published a study that confirms what older generations of women understood intuitively -- that prioritizing relationships is the key to contentment. Looking back, I had women in my family that never married and were very successful professionally but they sacrificed for the broader family -- and were very happy in their lives. As were the devoted mothers. (But they all considered feminism to be essentially narcissism.) Chesterton noted that women have always controlled the culture and are (or at least were) the common-sense philosophers. If you look at Hollywood it seems to confirm this view -- Hollywood immediately flipped to support second wave feminism (aka the sexual revolution) but then flipped on a dime a few years ago with the feminst led #metoo movement which is an implicit rejection of the sexual revolution). The more interesting question is why the alienation from motherhood and why is the Church seemingly silent. Women leaders in the Church (based on the synod) are seemingly feminists and don't seem to be promoting motherhood. Again, why? Who knows for sure but older generations would probably say its the spiritual and psychological wreckage of the sexual revolution. Those rules were designed to protect women in particular as sexual abuse destroyed femininity. For men, it seems to have the effect of destroying moral authority.
> why the alienation from motherhood
The enemy hates motherhood (the general outlines of this fact seem evident to me but the details of why are unclear, and might not be productive to think about anyway, except as a sort of backwards examination of conscience.)
I do suspect that the answer does not lie in ideology but ultimately in the confessional and the Eucharist. Ideology emerges from culture and culture emerges from the interplay of virtue and vice. The Eucharist and the Confessional are what lead to a healthy culture.