Dignitas Infinita, the recent declaration issued by the Catholic Church on human dignity, provides in its last section an extensive list of violations of human dignity that the Church considers harmful not only to individuals but to the common good.  In my last post, I reviewed the Catholic understanding of human dignity and its scriptural basis.  In this post, I will briefly examine the real-life violations and the reasons given for including them in the list.

The underlying belief and goal in denouncing the violations is, in the words of Pope Francis, that “Every human being has the right to live with dignity and to develop integrally; this fundamental right cannot be denied by any country. People have this right even if they are unproductive or were born with or developed limitations. This does not detract from their great dignity as human persons, a dignity based not on circumstances but on the intrinsic worth of their being. Unless this basic principle is upheld, there will be no future either for fraternity or for the survival of humanity.”  It is therefore everybody’s responsibility to ensure that human dignity is always respected.

The unequal distribution of wealth in the world has resulted in extreme poverty for many, which is a violation of human dignity.  The poor distribution of “goods and services originally intended for all” is called an injustice by the declaration.  Even worse is the fact that wealth has been increasing in absolute terms in the world, while the “scandal of glaring inequalities” continues.

The Church rejects the claim that the modern world has reduced poverty.  Poverty is simply “measured with criteria from the past that do not correspond to present-day realities.”  Indeed, poverty “can take a variety of forms, such as an obsession with reducing labor costs with no concern for its grave consequences, since the unemployment that it directly generates leads to the expansion of poverty.”  One must understand that “there is no poverty worse than that which takes away work and the dignity of work.”

As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church has been consistent in advocating for relief for the poor and disenfranchised.  However, its partnership with the Roman state had an impact on its historical priorities as a hierarchy was introduced, with the bishops acquiring privileges similar to those of the Roman elites.  Therefore, the inequalities the Church is denouncing have been present within the Church itself, and the monastic movement was a reaction against such inconsistencies.

Given the deplorable history of the Catholic Church – and Christianity in general – on the topic of violence and warfare, the new attitude presented in Dignitas Infinita is a welcome change:

“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.”

It is recognized that wars are “conflicts that will not solve problems but only increase them.”  As I have reported in another post, nonviolent action has a better chance of resolving conflicts without creating more problems.  Pope Francis is particularly radical in his rejection of war as a solution to problems.  Indeed, he does not even accept Just War Theory:

“We can no longer think of war as a solution because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war!”

As I discussed in a previous post, the pope’s radical rejection of war has been puzzling to his Jewish friends who expected more support from him in the current conflict in Palestine.

Violations of the human dignity of migrants are highlighted in the following succinct statement that captures their plight:

“Migrants are among the first victims of multiple forms of poverty. Not only is their dignity denied in their home countries, but also their lives are put at risk because they no longer have the means to start a family, to work, or to feed themselves. Once they have arrived in countries that should be able to accept them, ‘migrants are not seen as entitled like others to participate in the life of society, and it is forgotten that they possess the same intrinsic dignity as any person. […] No one will ever openly deny that they are human beings; yet in practice, by our decisions and the way we treat them, we can show that we consider them less worthy, less important, less human.’”

In my view, when citizens of a given nation use nationalistic arguments to protect their borders against undocumented visitors, they speak a language that the nations of the world understand.  However, true Christians live by different rules and see themselves as citizens of heaven.  They are aware that the God of the Bible has always told his people to support the orphans, the widows and the foreigners.  That is why Dignitas Infinita cannot compromise on the issue.

Human trafficking is counted as a grave violation of human dignity that has been taking on “tragic dimensions before our eyes.”  The Church and all humanity are urged to fight “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. Such is the magnitude of these situations, and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism that would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.’”

The very short statement on sexual abuse emphasizes that “all sexual abuse leaves deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it.”  Given that this topic has been a major stain on the history of the Catholic Church, the last sentence is important: “From this stem the Church’s ceaseless efforts to put an end to all kinds of abuse, starting from within.”

Dignitas Infinita sees violence against women as a global problem that is inherent to societies everywhere simply because the dignity of women is not fully recognized.  As a result, people pay lip service to a notion of equality between genders that does not exist in real life.

Much must be done to “prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers.”  Also, there is “an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.”  Inequalities in these areas are forms of violence against women.

Of course, women must be protected against the various forms of sexual violence they are subjected to, and “the widespread hedonistic and commercial culture which encourages the systematic exploitation of sexuality and corrupts even very young girls into letting their bodies be used for profit” must be condemned.  Coercive abortions, “which affect both mother and child, often to satisfy the selfishness of males,” and polygamy must all be condemned.

The Church urges the international community to have a “coordinated and concrete commitment” to address the problem of femicide, which is the killing of women simply because they are women.  This must be done by “calling for legislation and a culture that repudiates every form of violence.”

The position of the Catholic Church on abortion is well-known.  Here, it is assumed that all human beings have an inviolable dignity that starts at conception.  The Church is therefore alarmed that many no longer seem to approach the abortion matter with the seriousness it deserves:

“Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. […] But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior, and even in law itself is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake.”

Since proponents of abortion use “ambiguous language” such as “interruption of pregnancy” to attenuate the seriousness of abortion in public opinion, the Church responds by calling it what it really is:

“But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. Unborn children are, thus, ‘the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays, efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.’”

While I understand the need to affirm the dignity of the unborn, it seems to me that the dignity of the mother and the potential life she carries are intertwined and I find it difficult to separate them, or even speak of one as if the other is not relevant.  Also, as I have stated before, any solution of the abortion problem that is made by men with no or little input from women is meaningless since men are unqualified to speak to the matter of pregnancy.

The Church (and Pope Francis in particular) takes a strong stance against surrogacy “through which the immensely worthy child becomes a mere object.”  Surrogacy exploits “situations of the mother’s material needs” through a “commercial contract.”

Surrogacy, according to the Church, violates the dignity of the child and the child’s “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.”  Furthermore, couples that resort to surrogacy confuse “the legitimate desire to have a child” with the not-so-legitimate “right to a child.”

Surrogacy also violates the dignity of the mother, whether she is coerced into it or not.  Indeed, “the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.”

In my view, the above arguments against surrogacy seem strong.  However, they may also seem callous and detached from the needs and motives of real people in real-life situations.

The Church rejects the misguided definition of dignity that makes euthanasia a means of allowing people to supposedly die with dignity.  Indeed, “suffering does not cause the sick to lose their dignity, which is intrinsically and inalienably their own. Instead, suffering can become an opportunity to strengthen the bonds of mutual belonging and gain greater awareness of the precious value of each person to the whole human family.”

The Church supports efforts to alleviate suffering (care needs, pain relief, and affective and spiritual needs) but rejects “aggressive treatments or disproportionate medical procedures.”  At the same time, the dignity of human life must always be upheld, and “We must accompany people towards death, but not provoke death or facilitate any form of suicide. Remember that the right to care and treatment for all must always be prioritized so that the weakest, particularly the elderly and the sick, are never rejected. Life is a right, not death, which must be welcomed, not administered. And this ethical principle concerns everyone, not just Christians or believers.”

Again, the arguments are strong.  But is that a callous way of looking at human suffering?

In an era characterized by a “throw-away culture,” the Church calls for special attention to the needs of “those experiencing physical or mental limitations.”  It is pointed out that “some cultures tend to marginalize or even oppress individuals with disabilities, treating them as ‘rejects.’”  Instead, “every effort should be made to encourage the inclusion and active participation of those who are affected by frailty or disability in the life of society and of the Church.”

On the issue of gender theory, Dignitas Infinita starts by affirming the dignity of all human beings, saying 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.” It denounces assaults on human dignity in places where “not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.”

That being said, the Church rejects gender theory because it attempts to introduce new rights that are not self-evident and are not listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to the Church, gender theory does not accept human life, in both its material and spiritual dimensions, as a gift from God.  It encourages individuals to seek personal self-determination, making themselves God in the process.

Another serious problem associated with 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.”

Furthermore, gender theory “envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.”

I am not highly knowledgeable on gender theory, but it seems to me that the above is a rather simplistic representation of it.  It reminds me of arguments used by the Catholic Church against homosexuality, which I found seriously flawed as I explained in another post.

Arguments against sex change are similar to the ones against gender theory: Humans must accept their bodies as created by God, and “respect the natural order of the created person.”  There is, however, something that looks like a concession: “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.”

In my view, once we admit the possibility of “genital abnormalities” at birth, we must also admit that human life is complicated and cannot be fully captured by a few verses in the book of Genesis.

Digital technologies, while offering vast possibilities for promoting human dignity, present new challenges and problems that must be addressed: “exploitation, exclusion, and violence grow, extending even to the point of harming the dignity of the human person.”  It is, for example, rather easy to harm a person’s reputation through “fake news and slander.”

The digital environment has many problems.  It is “one of loneliness, manipulation, exploitation, and violence, even to the extreme case of the ‘dark web.’ Digital media can expose people to the risk of addiction, isolation, and gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking the development of authentic interpersonal relationships. New forms of violence are spreading through social media, for example, cyberbullying. The internet is also a channel for spreading pornography and the exploitation of persons for sexual purposes or through gambling.”

Therefore, “the human community must be proactive in addressing these trends with respect to human dignity and the promotion of the good.”  The internet is, in fact, a gift from God because it offers “immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity.”  Care must be taken “to ensure that present-day forms of communication are in fact guiding us to generous encounter with others, to honest pursuit of the whole truth, to service, to closeness to the underprivileged and to the promotion of the common good.”

Considering how digital communications have injected fake information and conspiracy theories in today’s public debates, there is no arguing against the above observations.