The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines human dignity as “a kind of basic worth or status that purportedly belongs to all persons equally, and which grounds fundamental moral or political duties or rights.”  In recent history, the doctrine of human dignity has received increased attention in the Catholic Church, which is a welcome departure from the human rights abuses that stained a long stretch of its history.

In a previous post, I reviewed the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, a document issued by Vatican II that makes maintaining human dignity the focus of church interactions with the world (See the second part of the review here).  The Church recently provided a more comprehensive doctrine of human dignity in a declaration published in April 2024 called Dignitas Infinita.  Media reports on the declaration have, so far, focused on controversial topics such as its rejection of surrogacy and gender theory.  In this post, I will review the theological basis of the doctrine, and in a future post, I will discuss how it determines church positions on real life issues, including surrogacy and gender theory.

Section 1 of Dignitas Infinita describes human dignity as a quality inherently possessed by every human being:

“Every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter. This principle, which is fully recognizable even by reason alone, underlies the primacy of the human person and the protection of human rights. In the light of Revelation, the Church resolutely reiterates and confirms the ontological dignity of the human person, created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed in Jesus Christ. From this truth, the Church draws the reasons for her commitment to the weak and those less endowed with power, always insisting on ‘the primacy of the human person and the defense of his or her dignity beyond every circumstance.’”

This statement affirms that the concept of human dignity can be understood both from Christian theology and from reason.  It also naturally leads to a recognition of human rights, which is why the Church is in full agreement with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.  To be precise, the above statement defines ontological dignity, which “belongs to the person as such simply because he or she exists and is willed, created, and loved by God. Ontological dignity is indelible and remains valid beyond any circumstances in which the person may find themselves.”

There are other ways of looking at dignity.  One may speak of moral dignity, social dignity or existential dignity.  Moral dignity can be understood from the fact that humans are free agents who may choose to make wrong moral choices, thereby acting in “non-dignified” ways.  For example, they may betray their divine calling to love their neighbor and, instead, choose to do evil to others, showing that they possess no moral dignity.

Social dignity refers to “the quality of a person’s living conditions.”  Due to extreme poverty, people may be subjected, not necessarily through any fault of their own, to living conditions that are “undignified” because they violate their ontological dignity.  In other words, such people deserve better in God’s creation.

Existential dignity refers to loss of dignity when people are subjected to destructive conditions such as violence and warfare, serious illnesses, pathological addictions, etc.  In spite of all these circumstances, ontological dignity is never lost.

The statement in Section 1 also makes it clear that divine revelation is the primary motivation behind the attitude of the Church on human dignity.  In antiquity, there was already a partial understanding of the concept when various levels of dignity were conferred to people on the basis of their rank or status in society.  Biblical revelation does not tolerate that kind of discrimination.  Instead,

“Biblical Revelation teaches that all human beings possess inherent dignity because they are created in the image and likeness of God: ‘God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them’ (Gen. 1:26-27). With this, humanity has a specific quality that means it is not reducible to purely material elements. Moreover, the ‘image’ does not define the soul or its intellectual abilities but the dignity of man and woman. In their relationship of equality and mutual love, both the man and the woman represent God in the world and are also called to cherish and nurture the world. Because of this, to be created in the image of God means to possess a sacred value that transcends every distinction of a sexual, social, political, cultural, and religious nature. Our dignity is bestowed upon us by God; it is neither claimed nor deserved. Every human being is loved and willed by God and, thus, has an inviolable dignity.”

Dignitas Infinita points out that in the Old Testament, God, speaking through his prophets, shows his concern for human dignity by defending the poor, orphans, widows and strangers.  In the New Testament Jesus, through his life and teaching, provides the best expression of God’s concern for human dignity:

“Born and raised in humble conditions, Jesus reveals the dignity of the needy and those who labor. Then, throughout his public ministry, he affirms the value and dignity of all who bear the image of God, regardless of their social status and external circumstances. Jesus broke down cultural and cultic barriers, restoring dignity to those who were ‘rejected’ or were considered to be on the margins of society, such as tax collectors (cf. Mt. 9:10-11), women (cf. Jn. 4:1-42), children (cf. Mk. 10:14-15), lepers (cf. Mt. 8:2-3), the sick (cf. Mk. 1:29-34), strangers (cf. Mt. 25:35), and widows (cf. Lk. 7:11-15). He heals, feeds, defends, liberates, and saves. He is described as a shepherd who is concerned about the one sheep that was lost (cf. Mt. 18:12-14). He identifies with the least of his brethren: ‘As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me’ (Mt. 25:40). In biblical language, the ‘little ones’ are not only the children, but are also the vulnerable, the most insignificant, the outcast, the oppressed, the discarded, the poor, the marginalized, the unlearned, the sick, and those who are downtrodden by the powerful. The glorious Christ will judge by the love of neighbor that consists in ministering to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned, with whom he identifies (cf. Mt. 25:34-36). For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment. The apostle Paul affirms that every Christian must live according to the requirements of dignity and respect for the rights of all people (cf. Rom. 13:8-10) according to the new commandment of love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-13).”

One question comes to mind: If biblical teaching is so clear about the inviolability of human dignity, why did it take the Church two millennia to get to a clear understanding of it? Or was it at the center of Church efforts from the very beginning?

Sections 13-16 of Digitas Infinita provide a brief historical perspective that suggests continuous progress was made in Church understanding of human dignity by Christian thinkers from the days of the Founding Fathers, through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, to the current era with Vatican II as an important milestone.  But history shows that such progress had very little impact on the practice of the Christian religion.  In the Middle Ages in particular, the human rights record of the Roman Catholic Church was deplorable.  This dark history persisted for centuries after, and Protestantism brought no improvement to it.  It is a history of patriarchy and antisemitism, of persecution, torture and execution of heretics and witches, and of extreme mistreatment of non-Christians away from Europe.  As Brian McLaren put it in his book The Great Spiritual Migration,

“If you seek an education in the humbling dimensions of our past, you would be wise to begin with the rise of anti-Semitism, a phenomenon that began within decades of Christ and the apostles and grew like a cancer until the Holocaust exposed it for the atrocity that it was. You would also include the history of Christianity’s rejection of women as equal in church life and leadership, a legacy that began early and continues in many places today. You would focus significant attention on Emperor Constantine and his conversion to—and of—Christianity, which married the kingdom of God to the empire of Rome, a dysfunctional marriage indeed. You would ponder how, through Constantine and his supporters, a counterimperial spiritual movement centered on a man who was tortured and killed by the Roman Empire became a proimperial institution that would, in the name of its founder and the Roman emperors, torture and kill others.

For American Christians like myself, this education would have to include a particular strain of Christian history that is still highly influential today, a lineage of evil that stretches from Constantine to Pope Nicholas to Columbus to contemporary American and European politics: the tradition of racial and religious privilege and supremacy—specifically white and Christian privilege and supremacy.”

It is therefore comforting that the Catholic Church, today, believes that “Every individual possesses an inalienable and intrinsic dignity from the beginning of his or her existence as an irrevocable gift” (Section 22).  However, “to express that dignity and manifest it to the full or to obscure it depends on each person’s free and responsible decision.”  Indeed, as explained earlier, an individual can make moral choices that make him fall far short of his calling to be God’s image and violate his ontological dignity.  In other words, “sin can wound and obscure human dignity, as it is an act contrary to that dignity,” even though it cannot cancel it.  For that reason, one cannot rely solely on reason since reason can be manipulated to achieve goals that reflect self-interest.  Faith is necessary because it “plays a decisive role in helping reason perceive human dignity and in accepting, consolidating, and clarifying its essential features.”

On the matter of faith, I would add that the object of one’s faith is a critical element.  The dark history I mentioned above is proof that the faith of the Church was not centered in Christ.

In Section 24, Dignitas Infinita provides further clarification, thereby setting the stage for justification of the way the Catholic Church applies the concept of dignity to certain real-life topics.  It rejects the notion that human dignity should be redefined as personal dignity.  This is because the concept of personal dignity assumes that “dignity and rights are deduced from the individual’s capacity for knowledge and freedom, which not all humans possess.”  It argues that such a definition would withdraw rights from the unborn child, the older person who is dependent upon others, and individuals with mental disabilities.  It maintains that “The only prerequisite for speaking about the dignity inherent in the person is their membership in the human species.”

Similarly, Dignitas Infinita rejects the use of the concept of human dignity “to justify an arbitrary proliferation of new rights, many of which are at odds with those originally defined and often are set in opposition to the fundamental right to life.”  It warns that dignity should not be confused with “individual preference or subjective desire,” or the attempt to “impose particular subjective desires and propensities as ‘rights’ to be guaranteed and funded by the community.”

It seems to me that the intent of these clarifications can be understood from the position of the Catholic Church on abortion: The fetus, or “unborn child” as it is called here, is assumed to have its own intrinsic dignity that should not be violated by concerns such as the mother’s freedom to do whatever she wants with her body.  However, there is still the reality that humans are not islands.  They interact with each other and their individual rights may collide with each other.  Perhaps that is why the document goes on to address the “relational” aspect of human dignity:

“Viewed through the lens of the relational character of the person, human dignity helps to overcome the narrow perspective of a self-referential and individualistic freedom that claims to create its own values regardless of the objective norms of the good and of our relationship with other living beings. Indeed, there is an ever-growing risk of reducing human dignity to the ability to determine one’s identity and future independently of others, without regard for one’s membership in the human community. In this flawed understanding of freedom, the mutual recognition of duties and rights that enable us to care for each other becomes impossible.”

In other words, our calling to love our neighbor and respect the dignity of others should keep us from making choices that only advance our individual and selfish needs and preferences.  This, of course, is true.  However, going back to the example of a pregnant woman, a question remains unanswered: If her life is endangered by her pregnancy, who gets to tell her what she should do?  Is it some male priest with no ability to put himself in her shoes?

Considering the danger associated with the potential misuse of human free will, the document emphasizes the fact that our free will itself must be liberated from negative influences in the moral and social spheres.  From that perspective, we can only be truly free if we accept the authority of one above ourselves, namely God.

Dignitas Infinita also gives a reminder that the focus on human dignity should not lead to neglect of the intrinsic value of other beings:

“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. Those beings exist not only for human utility but also possess a value of their own; they are like gifts entrusted to humanity to be cherished and cultivated. Thus, while the concept of dignity is reserved for the human being, at the same time, the creaturely goodness of the rest of the cosmos must be affirmed.”

There is also a reminder that humans should take care of the environment, not only because it is part of God’s good creation, but also because human well-being depends on its maintenance: “Indeed, it belongs to human beings’ dignity to care for the environment, taking particular account of the human ecology that preserves their very existence.”