Today I will continue my reflections on the just released declaration of the Roman Catholic Church’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on “Dignitas Infinita” (Human Dignity). In part one I commented on the Introduction and point # 1. I will take up points #2 and #3 below.
Presentation
Introduction
1. A Growing Awareness of the Centrality of Human Dignity
2. The Church Proclaims, Promotes, and Guarantees Human Dignity
3. Dignity, the Foundation of Human Rights and Duties
4. Some Grave Violations of Human Dignity
Conclusion
The Church Proclaims, Promotes, and Guarantees Human Dignity
The unimpeachable ground of infinite human dignity is the incomprehensible love of God. That love is expressed first in creating humanity in God’s image, body and soul, male and female. In the second place, created human dignity is confirmed by the incarnation of the Son of God. The third guarantee of infinite dignity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which reveals that eternal life in union with God is humanity’s ultimate destiny. Human dignity rests securely in humankind’s ontological nature and remains as a permanent moral imperative to treat each and every human being with respect and love. Moreover, that same indelible dignity constitutes a moral imperative for each person to live out their dignity in their own free activity. Though we cannot erase our God-created dignity, we can contradict, wound, and soil it.
Dignity, the Foundation of Human Rights and Duties
The revelation of infinite and universal human dignity articulated in the biblical doctrines of creation, incarnation, and the resurrection to eternal life has had a profound influence on the world. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) witnesses to this influence. The Declaration notwithstanding, some people limit human dignity by specifying it as “personal dignity” and restricting the category of “person” to “one who is capable of reasoning.” Hence “persons” are a subcategory of human beings. Clearly, this restriction designates some human beings as non-persons (e.g. preborn human beings) and offends against the infinite and ontologically basic nature of human dignity. A second misunderstanding of human dignity transfers the unlimited nature of dignity (originally objective and intrinsic to human being) to the subjective sphere, endowing the capricious human subject with a panoply of new rights. In the name of dignity, individuals claim arbitrary sovereignty over themselves, body and soul. The concept of dignity, originally grounded in the love of God manifested in creation, incarnation and the promise of eternal life, becomes the justification for the quasi deification of the individual subject wherein the inner self grounds and measures its own identity, freedom, and behavior. Where such a subjective view of dignity becomes dominant, social life becomes possible only through arbitrary agreement among individual wills. Social life becomes an incoherent mixture of individual capriciousness and political coercion. Pope Benedict XVI sums up this situation perfectly:
A will which believes itself radically incapable of seeking truth and goodness has no objective reasons or motives for acting save those imposed by its fleeting and contingent interests; it does not have an ‘identity’ to safeguard and build up through truly free and conscious decisions. As a result, it cannot demand respect from other ‘wills,’ which are themselves detached from their own deepest being and thus capable of imposing other ‘reasons’ or, for that matter, no ‘reason’ at all. The illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings [Message for the Celebration of the 44th World Day of Peace (1 January 2011)].
To be continued…
ifaqtheology 
Hello Ron.
This is interesting isn’t it!
I don’t usually like to limit myself with Wikipedia, but in this instance, it does have a reasonable summary. Of course, it rarely goes deeply, or hardly ever, into a truly Christian ethos. E.G. The ‘free will’ aspects of our christian faith which relate to understanding the nature of a bondservant (allied to the concept of dignity).
Regarding Kant and Marx, and the idea of “agency” i would like to focus with a direct question to readers (and yourself Ron).
Question(s):
When the good samaritan helped the beaten man from the gutter (saving his life), did he act on behalf of the victim’s ‘dignity’ or did he help him because he was in desperate need?
Or perhaps, did the samaritan act because he himself had dignity, which belied a higher moral undertanding of goodness?
Has dignity become a word that has come to mean a “thing” which gets in between the individual thinking about God, or deciding they possess inalienable rights (including the worship of the self).
All answers welcomed.
JS
LikeLike
You may have a point about the way the word “dignity” in used in common speech. It does sound like a thing. The Bible does not speak about human dignity. It speaks, rather, about God’s love for his human creatures and his creation of humans in “the image of God.” Dignity is a Latinate word meaning “worth.” The good Samaritan was moved by compassion toward the wounded man, not an abstract quality possessed by the man…you are right there. Nevertheless, I think Christian ethics can use the concept of dignity, if only as a refutation of the ancient pagan and modern secular concept of levels of human worth. I think “Dignitas Infinita” does a good job with this critique. The document defines dignity in relation to the love of God and the image of God, and at the ontological level asserts the immeasurable dignity of all human beings in all conditions, from conception to death.
LikeLike
I take your point entirely.
“For we are greater than the angels”, and ” for you shall do greater things than…!”.
However, for me personally i’m reminded to be cautious of policy and agenda in the Catholic Church. Lest this be one arm or leg, of a new kind of rationale that leads to some form of propaganda or brain-washing.
One such blind avenue being the complete misunderstanding of the concept of ‘Imago Dei’. I’m quite sure that the ‘joke characters’ and portrayal of certain human features painted by Michelangelo in is pictures and stucco indicate that he thought “do you really want me to paint an old man in the clouds?” God help us.
In my view, a lot of what is still misunderstood today. It gets worse from then on. Much of what art both teaches and warns us is echoed in language (or it’s misuse).
Jesus ” do not worry about what you put into your mouth, for it all leaves as draft- instead, worry much more about what comes out of it, for…..”
LikeLike