Tag Archives: abortion

“Dignitas Infinita” (Infinite Dignity): A Recommendation

Leave a reply

Today I would like to recommend reading the full text of the just released declaration of the Roman Catholic Church’s Dicastery [from a Greek word meaning congregation or assembly] for the Doctrine of the Faith on “Dignitas Infinita” (Human Dignity). Popular media focuses on paragraphs 48-50 on Surrogacy and 55-60 on Gender Theory and Sex Change, ignoring the Declaration’s treatment of the theological foundations for these and other practical applications. But this narrowing of focus to “hot button” issues is unfortunate, because the Declaration’s sections on contemporary issues are incomprehensible and unpersuasive apart from its theological sections.

Every sentence, indeed almost every word, of the Declaration is rich with theological meaning and historical associations. A full commentary would run hundreds of pages. In this post, I will make only a few observations designed to whet your appetite to read it for yourself. The Declaration is a beautiful example of theological reasoning and courageous application. In an age of confusion and irrationality, I welcome its clarity and rationality. In a time wherein Scripture and tradition have been replaced in many hearts by subjective experience, I appreciate its submission to these normative authorities. The Declaration is relatively short, containing 17 pages of text divided into 66 paragraphs followed by 7 pages of footnotes. It is divided into 7 sections under the following headings:

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

In what follows I will highlight the main thrust and some significant points from each of the seven sections.

Presentation

In the Presentation, Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, tells the story of the Declaration on “Infinite Dignity” from its beginnings in 2019 to its approval by Pope Francis on March 25, 2024.

Introduction

The Introduction clarifies the concept of infinite human dignity. Human dignity is “infinite” in the sense that at no point between conception and death and under no circumstances in between may a limit be placed on the worth of a human being. The first paragraph of the Introduction is worth quoting in full:

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” [Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum (4 October 2023)].

In a subsection (“A Fundamental Clarification”), the Declaration attempts to clarify the confusion in contemporary thinking surrounding the phrase “the dignity of the human person.” For the word “person” is often used in a way that excludes the objective and ontological reality of human beings and focuses only on the individual’s capacity for self-determination. Consequently, “Dignitas Infinita” distinguishes among four aspects of the concept of dignity: ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity, and existential dignity. Whereas “ontological dignity” is objective, essential and inalienable, moral, social, and existential dignity vary with circumstances. We have a duty as individuals and societies to promote the moral, social, and existential dignity of all people in view of their ontological dignity.

1. A Growing Awareness of the Centrality of Human Dignity

Like every good treatise in theology, “Dignitas Infinita” places its doctrinal conclusions in historical context. Whereas classical antiquity made some progress toward the concept of human dignity, only with the biblical doctrine of creation—especially its declaration that God created human beings in God’s image—the teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, the apostolic message of salvation in Christ and the hope of eternal life does the fullness of infinite human dignity come to light. The document continues with a brief look at Thomas Aquinas, who building on the work of Boethius defined “person” as “what is most perfect in all nature—that is, a subsistent individual of a rational nature” (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 29, a. 3). This section also touches briefly on developments in the Renaissance, in the Enlightenment thought of Descartes and Kant, and in twentieth-century Personalism. It quotes approvingly the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which speaks of “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” The section on the historical development of the concept of human dignity ends with the Second Vatican Council, which urged acknowledgment of the “sublime dignity of the human person, who stands above all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable.” According to “Dignitas Infinita,” during the course of the history of the concept of human dignity,

The Church’s Magisterium progressively developed an ever-greater understanding of the meaning of human dignity, along with its demands and consequences, until it arrived at the recognition that the dignity of every human being prevails beyond all circumstances.

To be continued…

Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Protestants: Different Denomination, Same Hypocrisy

4 Replies

In the March 31 episode of CBS’s Face the Nation, Roman Catholic Cardinal Gregory Walton of Washington DC spoke of President Joe Biden as a “cafeteria Catholic.” The Cardinal explained to the audience that cafeteria Catholics pick and choose which church teachings to believe and practice based on expediency and preference. Walton hastened to add that Mr. Biden is “sincere,” which to my mind strains credulity. For I can’t square flagrant disobedience and direct contradiction of the Church’s clear teaching with sincerity. What stands out in the cafeteria Catholic mentality is the lack of a spirit of obedience. They want the advantages of being known as good Catholics without actually having to live like one. And so, they add the sin of hypocrisy to the sin of disobedience. A “sincere” cafeteria Catholic is an oxymoron, like a square circle or married bachelor.

Cafeteria Protestants join their Catholic counterparts in the same spirit of selectivity and hypocrisy. Cafeteria Protestants treat the Bible the way cafeteria Catholics treat the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. For them, Jesus’s teaching can be summed up in two commandments: (1) don’t judge the choices of others, and (2) do what makes you happy. They quietly pass over Jesus’s teaching forbidding divorce, lust, and greed. They soften Jesus’s warnings about the narrow and the broad ways. They practice injustice, abortion, fornication, and adultery. The only cross they bear is the one the wear around their necks. Of the spirit of obedience, they know nothing. Sincerity means purity of heart. You can’t be a sincere hypocrite!

In the Bible, especially in the New Testament, the test of sincerity is your willingness to suffer for the faith. Faithfulness unto death is the mark of a true disciple of Jesus. Willingness to confess Christ as Lord before hostile audiences is the proof of faith. The words of Peter expose and condemn in the clearest terms the hypocrisy of “cafeteria” faith in both its Catholic and Protestant forms:

Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God (1 Peter 1:13-21).

“Alert and fully sober,” “obedient children,” “holy,” “reverent fear”? These are not terms that come to mind when I think of cafeteria Christians. Like all hypocrites, cafeteria Catholics and cafeteria Protestants possess no real consciousness of God, that is, of the “Father who judges each person’s work impartially.” They seek only “to be seen by others” as virtuous. Jesus says of them, “Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full” (Matthew 6:5-6).

Can Fifty-Seven Percent of the People of Ohio Transform Evil into Good?

8 Replies

On Tuesday, November 07, 2023, the people of Ohio voted by a margin of 57% to 43% to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitution. What does this act mean? First, let me be clear right up front: A state possesses no power to transform an immoral activity into a moral one. A state can declare that black is white, up is down, evil is good but it cannot make them so. And a person may engage in an activity that incurs no guilt according to legislated law—or even garners praise—but that incurs profound guilt according to moral law and condemnation according to God’s law. Abortion is profoundly immoral, irresponsible, and sinful. And no rationalization can justify it. But Ohio declared it to be a constitutionally protected right. And that makes it so; that is, it really does make it a constitutionally protected right. But to make use of that humanly invented right is as immoral and sinful today as it has always been. And the divine Judge does not care in the least what the constitution of the State of Ohio asserts.

Why a Constitutional Right?

I am sure I am oversimplifying it. But I see a difference between activities that a state declares (1) illegal (2) obligatory, (3) matters of positive right, and (4) matters it leaves unregulated. In a just state, the legislative authority makes illegal only those activities it considers seriously deleterious to the common good (e.g., armed robbery) or obligatory only those activities it considers necessary to the common good (e.g., paying taxes). The state leaves the vast majority of life’s activities unregulated (4). To leave an area unregulated assumes that no serious threat to the common good is at stake one way or another. Or, another way to put it is that leaving certain areas unregulated is itself advantageous to the common good.

But what about (3) positive rights? If the State of Ohio did not want to make the immoral act of abortion illegal, it could have left it unregulated or regulated it within specific limits. Instead, however, it made abortion a positive right. What does giving abortion this particular legal status say about the State of Ohio’s understanding of abortion in relation to the common good? A positive right is a freedom for a certain activity that a person may make use of or not. Like activities the state leaves unregulated, engaging in the privileged activity is left to individual discretion. Moreover, it is assumed not to damage the common good. But unlike unregulated activities, it is specifically named. Naming a right—rather than lumping it in with other unregulated activities—indicates that protecting this right has been recognized as of great value to the common good. Making it a constitutional right reinforces this conclusion. For no state legislature can make a legitimate law contravening the constitution of that state. Think of other positive rights: freedom of religion, assembly, and speech. These rights must be protected because their exercise enhances the common good.

How does exercising the constitutional right to abortion enhance the common good in analogy to exercising speech, religion, or assembly? Do fifty-seven percent of the people of Ohio believe that aborting a child is a good thing? Perhaps fifty-seven percent of the people of Ohio are utilitarian in their ethics and think that limiting population or reducing poverty by way of abortion is a good thing. (Utilitarianism asserts that whatever produces the most good for the greatest number is also good.) But I doubt that very many of the good people of Ohio are self-conscious utilitarians. I don’t think Ohioans, believing that abortion itself is a good thing, wanted to maximize the number of abortions in their state. What, then, is the good the fifty-seven percent see produced by their action? I think they take the freedom to choose as such, without regard to what you choose, as a higher good than minimizing the number of children aborted. Apparently, they were willing to make that trade, which is a very Utilitarian thing to do! What they may have lost sight of is that exercising freedom in an immoral act is itself an immoral act. And freely cooperating to grant a positive right to commit what you know is an immoral act (as opposed to leaving areas unregulated) is itself an immoral act.

Progressivism: A Wolf Disguised as a Sheep

3 Replies

Contemporary progressivism is a wolf disguised as a sheep. That is the way I see it. And I cannot let go of it until I have done all I can do to expose it as such. For months, I have been reviewing books that advocate or criticize “progressive Christianity.” Today I will begin a short series dealing with the secular side of the progressive movement, which after all is the true inspiration for progressive Christianity. In this series, I will argue that contemporary progressivism is empty of positive principles, sterile, parasitic, incoherent, destructive, arbitrary, and above all, deceptive.

What Progressives Celebrate

Cultural progressives routinely celebrate events that they think signify progress and lament those they view as retrograde. Progressive changes are welcomed as “historic,” “marking the advance of history,” or as “firsts.” To resist these historic advances is to stand “on the wrong side of history” and attempt “to turn back the clock.” For the progressive left, expansion of LGBTQ+ rights and privileges and so-called reproductive rights and promotion of people with intersectional identities (combinations of race, gender, ableness, etc.) to positions of visibility and power represent the cutting edge of progress.

This moment in history presents a confluence of forces nearly impossible to disentangle. Different political and moral visions, religious attitudes, cultural sensibilities, private and group interests, and rhetorical strategies flow out of past conflicts only to collide again in the public space of contemporary society. The progressive wolf is very good at disguising itself as one of the redeeming forces in this struggle. Only patient and careful scrutiny can unmask the lupine nature beneath the sheep costume.

What is Progress?

I have addressed this question in past essays (See especially the February 21, 2014 essay), but I want to reflect again on this theme in the present context. At least in the contexts celebrated by the Left today as progress (LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, and intersectional identity), progress is measured by the advance of individual freedom. Individuals in these groups are freer to pursue happiness today than they were in the past, and the cultural left celebrates this change as progress. Progressives treat the individual’s right to pursue their happiness as a basic moral principle, a human right that must be honored in every case and at all costs. (Call it the “Freedom Principle.”) Anyone who attempts to restrict these newly declared freedoms offends against a self-evident moral principle. What kind of person would resist the outworking of a self-evident, universal human right? Only a morally obtuse, irrational, and hateful person!

The Self-Contradiction in the Freedom Principle

Progressives appeal to the Freedom Principle as a universal rule. However as soon as they attempt to apply it, its incoherence and absurdity become obvious. On the one hand, progressives tell us that we should be free to pursue our happiness in whatever way we want. On the other hand, they demand that we respect the freedom of others. That is to say, my freedom must be restricted so that others may exercise their freedom. To apply the principle to one person we must withhold its application to another. Progressives, then, both affirm and deny unlimited freedom—an obvious contradiction. Hence, the Freedom Principle cannot carry the weight demanded of a universal moral principle or a human right capable of guiding our social relationships.

Not only is the Freedom Principle incoherent, it reduces to absurdity in application. Applying the Freedom Principle universally would destroy the distinction between right and wrong, rational and irrational, and good and bad actions. Progressives use the principle to justify a general moral claim, that is, that it is wrong to restrict a person’s freedom to act for their happiness. But applying it consistently would lead to some very unwelcome consequences. For there is nothing within it to discourage people from pursuing happiness by committing violent acts toward others. Indeed, applying the principle consistently would obligate me and everyone else to stand by as an individual violates the most sacred human rights of even the most vulnerable. Not only so, it would obligate me to refrain from defending my own life and liberty. Clearly, the Freedom Principle alone cannot sustain the contemporary progressive vision.

The Insufficiency of the Freedom Principle

In isolation, freedom is anarchic, amoral, and destructive (See my essay of January 24, 2022). Progressives, of course, do not wish to be seen as embracing anarchy. But how can they avoid this implication? To do so, they must adhere in some way to other principles (or arbitrary decisions) that limit and direct freedom toward constructive ends and harmonious relationships. Freedom needs help in discerning the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, rational and irrational. Expanding LGBTQ+ rights, advancing abortion access, and promoting people with intersectional identities are indisputably progressive moves only if progress is measured exclusively by growth in the sphere of liberty for these activities.

But progressives’ celebration of these advances does not make sense apart from the assumption that these causes are good, right, and rational. For practical reasons, all societies allow their members to engage in some activities they deem wrong, bad, and irrational…but they do not celebrate them. Likewise, progressives would not be celebrating growth in these freedoms if they believed them to be evil, wrong, and irrational. Progressives do not celebrate the freedom to steal, lie, murder, rape, and commit genocide. They would not approve of a freedom to engage in hate speech, misgendering, and racism. By what principles, then, do progressives justify the conclusion that their favored activities are good, right, and rational whereas others (hate speech and racism) are not?

To be continued…