On April 8, 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published the long awaited Declaration Dignitas Infinita. The purpose of the Declaration is to contrast the “indispensable nature of the dignity of the human person in Christian anthropology” with its inverted liberal meaning. The Declaration specifically covers current social issues Pope Francis believes are closely connected to human dignity. These topics include poverty, migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, and war, among others. The Declaration also reaffirms the Church's opposition to surrogacy and gender ideology. It is the Declarations condemnation of gender ideology that generated the most headlines in the secular media. However, this clear condemnation did not eliminate criticism. I intend to show that the criticisms are unwarranted and that when Dignitas Infinita is read with a hermeneutics of continuity there is a reasonable orthodox understanding.
Many critics didn't make it past the first sentence before they concluded Dignitas Infinita teaches heresy. The first sentence reads “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.” Critics were quick to point out that only God is infinite—He is infinitely just, infinitely merciful, infinitely great, infinitely powerful, infinitely good, and so on. The claim that human beings possess infinite dignity, the critics suggest, is to divinize humanity. Further context of this particular criticism comes from Saint Thomas Aquinas in Book 1, chapter 226 of Compendium of Theology:
By the sin of the first parent ruin had come upon the entire human race. No punishment undergone by any man could suffice to liberate the whole human race. No worthy satisfaction was available; no satisfaction offered by any mere man was great enough in value to free all men. Similarly, justice would not be fully met if even an angel, out of love for the human race, were to offer satisfaction for it. An angel does not possess infinite dignity, and hence any satisfaction he offered would not be capable of sufficing for indefinitely many people and their sins. God alone is of infinite dignity, and so he alone, in the flesh assumed by him, could adequately satisfy for man, as has already been noted. Therefore, it was right for him to assume a human nature so constituted that he could suffer for man in it what man himself deserved to suffer on account of his sin, and thus offer satisfaction on man’s behalf.
What Aquinas says here is absolutely true. The satisfaction offered by any mere man or any angel is not great enough in value to free all men. Only God who is perfect can accomplish such a task. God alone having “infinite dignity” in this context means maximally great. The specific meaning of infinite in this context is essentially the Anselmian Greatest Conceivable Being. In other words, a perfect being. Now this usage of infinite is widespread in philosophy and theology. This criticism would be valid if this is how Dignitas Infinita was using it. Fortunately, the Declaration itself tells us the context in which infinite is being used.
All of this confusion could have been avoided if the critics more carefully read the Declaration. Dignitas Infinita notes that the “dignity of every human being can be understood as ‘infinite’ (dignitas infinita), as Pope St. John Paul II affirmed in a meeting for people living with various limitations or disabilities.” Furthermore, the reason Pope St. John Paul used the language he did was to “show how human dignity transcends all outward appearances and specific aspects of people’s lives.” Dignitas Infinita reiterates this meaning from Fratelli Tutti, where Pope Francis “wanted to underscore that this dignity exists ‘beyond all circumstances.’” In other words, human dignity is innate and does not derive from any temporal, material, or physical characteristics.
As one critic pointed out the orgin of “infinite dignity” comes from a speech John Paul II gave in Osnabruck on November 16, 1980, where he used the German word “unendliche”, which can mean unending or unbounded. Dignitas Infinita is in agreement with this usage. The problem is not the word “infinite”, but rather with a myopic mindset of highly specialized philosophers and mathematicians. This resulted in the wrongheaded accusation of deifying humanity and the unnecessary attempt to resolve the conundrum by appealing to absolute and relative infinity or countable and uncountable infinity, cardinality, and set theory in general. A lot of wasted intellect was expended in resolving a problem that did not exist. When the proper context of Dignitas Infinita is taken into account “infinite dignity” simply means that human dignity is unquantifiable—it's not commensurable because persons are not commensurable. This isn't some novel meaning of the word, but how it is used in the common vernacular, meaning “impossible to measure or calculate”.
Further criticism was given to the phrase “inalienably grounded in his or her very being”. The critics have wrongfully inferred from this that the Declaration affirms innate human dignity independent of God. This criticism is specifically addressed in the text, but before answering the criticism, it is important to understand why Dignitas Infinita frames human dignity in this way. The importance of emphasizing human dignity as grounded in our very being is to dispell the common secular understanding of human worth grounded in an individuals utility. Rather, human beings posses an internal nature in which dignity is grounded. When this is understood it becomes apparent that the dignity of an unborn baby does not depend on the baby's mere location in the womb, stage of development, or desire of the mother. The unborn posses “infinite dignity” inalienably grounded in being created in the image and likeness of God.
Dignitas Infinita explains that our “infinite” dignity is a gift of God's infinite grace and love by first quoting Pope St. John Paul II, who said in 1979 that human dignity is a “Gospel value that cannot be despised without greatly offending the Creator”. In other words dishonoring a human person is dishonoring God. Furthermore, the Declaration notes that “from the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis has invited the Church to ‘believe in a Father who loves all men and women with an infinite love, realizing that ‘he thereby confers upon them an infinite dignity’’” and “has strongly emphasized that such immense dignity is an original datum (something given) that is to be acknowledged faithfully and welcomed with gratitude” and lastly “the wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. It is God's supernatural grace that builds on human nature, elevating it to an unquantifiable and incommensurable status.
The second main criticism specifically relates to the death penalty, but a more general criticism deserves attention. Dignitas Infinita has a section for each topic of interest regarding “grave violations of human dignity” of which the death penalty is not one. However, the death penalty is briefly mentioned. The Declaration states “the death penalty… violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances” and “the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe.” The explanation given is that “if I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone.” Part of the criticism comes from the fact that sandwiched in between murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, and torture—which the Magisterium has traditionally understood as intrinsically evil acts—is the death penalty, which the Magisterium has always taught, at least in principle, is permissible and consistent with justice. I think it is unfortunate that the death penalty was mentioned in the paragraph because it can give the misleading impression that the death penalty is now intrinsically evil, which would be a very serious departure from Church teaching. However, it is important to mention that the Declaration also explains how incarceration violates human dignity. The Declaration also notes that “all wars…contradict human dignity…”, poverty, which is linked to the “unequal distribution of wealth” denies the dignity of many human beings and “every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance.” I think it would be a grave mistake to conclude that capital punishment, incarceration, prison, war, self-defense, unequal distribution of wealth, nations, and borders are all intrinsically evil.
To answer the general question a distinction must be made between “grave violations of human dignity” and intrinsically evil acts. To help clarify, it is important to look at the four kinds of dignity in Dignitas Infinita:
This brings us to recognize the possibility of a fourfold distinction of the concept of dignity: ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity, and existential dignity. The most important among these is the ontological dignity that 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. When we speak of moral dignity, we refer to how people exercise their freedom. While people are endowed with conscience, they can always act against it. However, were they to do so, they would behave in a way that is “not dignified” with respect to their nature as creatures who are loved by God and called to love others. Yet, this possibility always exists for human freedom, and history illustrates how individuals—when exercising their freedom against the law of love revealed by the Gospel—can commit inestimably profound acts of evil against others. Those who act this way seem to have lost any trace of humanity and dignity. This is where the present distinction can help us discern between the moral dignity that de facto can be “lost” and the ontological dignity that can never be annulled. And it is precisely because of this latter point that we must work with all our might so that all those who have done evil may repent and convert.
There are still two other possible aspects of dignity to consider: social and existential. When we speak of social dignity, we refer to the quality of a person’s living conditions. For example, in cases of extreme poverty, where individuals do not even have what is minimally necessary to live according to their ontological dignity, it is said that those poor people are living in an “undignified” manner. This expression does not imply a judgment on those individuals but highlights how the situation in which they are forced to live contradicts their inalienable dignity. The last meaning is that of existential dignity, which is the type of dignity implied in the ever-increasing discussion about a “dignified” life and one that is “not dignified.” For instance, while some people may appear to lack nothing essential for life, for various reasons, they may still struggle to live with peace, joy, and hope. In other situations, the presence of serious illnesses, violent family environments, pathological addictions, and other hardships may drive people to experience their life conditions as “undignified” vis-à-vis their perception of that ontological dignity that can never be obscured. These distinctions remind us of the inalienable value of the ontological dignity that is rooted in the very being of the human person in all circumstances.
We can think of moral, social, and existential dignity as the fulfillment of ontological dignity. It is only in reference to ontological dignity that we can make sense of undignified moral, social, and existential ways of living. Ontological dignity is the potential which is actualized in each moral, social, and existential context. This is consistent with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms about human dignity:
The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God; it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude. It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment. By his deliberate actions, the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience. Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth. With the help of grace they grow in virtue, avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son to the mercy of our Father in heaven. In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.
Dignitas Infinita speaks of the “ultimate destiny of human beings” where “the dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God, destined to last forever.” The dignity of this life “is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from God, but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in knowledge and love of him”.
Dignitas Infinita further explains the necessity of defining ontological dignity. The Declaration states “without any ontological grounding, the recognition of human dignity would vacillate at the mercy of varying and arbitrary judgments” and “without such an objective basis, the concept of dignity becomes de facto subject to the most diverse forms of arbitrariness and power interests”. The Declaration contrast ontological dignity with “the illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence” when it “is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings”. Each individual “possesses an inalienable and intrinsic dignity from the beginning of his or her existence as an irrevocable gift.” This distinguishes it from the secular understanding of “dignity” as grounded in the arbitrary whims, preferences, and unfettered choice of each individual.
Dignitas Infinita explains the choice to express our ontological dignity—to manifest it fully or to obscure it—depends on the free choice of each individual. Every individual is called to manifest the “ontological scope of their dignity” on a moral, social, and existential level as they “orient themselves toward the true good in response to God’s love”. The ontological dignity of each individual is never lost or diminished, and yet how that dignity manifest itself can either increase or decrease depending on how each person responds to the good. Nevertheless, each person is called “to live up to the full measure of their dignity.” Taking this into consideration, it becomes clear how sin “can wound and obscure human dignity”.
I think we can make a clear distinction between “grave violations of human dignity” and intrinsically evil acts. An intrinsically evil act is evil by its nature, species or object. To speak of violations of ontological dignity simply means an undignified life incompatible with the final destiny of each human being. Thus, incarceration, war, capital punishment, or any act of killing is a violation of human dignity—to be killed or imprisoned is not dignified—and is incompatible with the fulfillment of every person's ontological dignity in the divine beatitude. However, sin, concupiscence, and the free choice of each individual can often justify violations of human dignity. Examples include self-defense, just war, incarceration for a crime, and so on. In other words there is a difference between whether something violates a person's dignity in all circumstances and whether there are circumstances where it is permissible to violate a person's dignity. The prudential judgment of the current Pontiff regarding capital punishment remains unchanged. That judgment is that at this particular moment in history there is no circumstance where the death penalty is permissible. It remains inadmissible.
When Dignitas Infinita is taken in context and in continuity with established doctrine, the Declaration is orthodox. Each human person is created in the image and likeness of God with inalienable dignity and by the salvivic act of Jesus Christ, the infinite love and grace of God has elevated human dignity to an unquantifiable and incommensurable status.