Human dignity: Traditional Catholic teaching and modern thought
With Cdl. Fernández’s Dignitas infinita released next week, it is useful to contrast the traditional and modern teaching on human dignity.
VATICAN CITY (PerMariam) — On April 8, the highly anticipated document on “human dignity” will be released by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, after he personally rewrote the text on the order of the Pope and thus did away with five years work by Vatican theologians.
Set to be released via a press conference on April 8 – the transferred feast of the Annunciation – the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s new text is called “Dignitas infinita,” and is largely the work of CDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández.
According to the reliable sources of La Croix’s Vatican correspondent Loup Besmond de Senneville, the text had been worked on by theologians at the CDF for five years, but Pope Francis specifically tasked Fernández to completely rework it once he assumed his new role as prefect in September 2023.
Fernández has previously stated that Dignitas infinita will address “not only social issues, but also a strong criticism of moral issues such as sex change, womb rental, gender ideologies, etc.” He did not anticipate much criticism of the text.
De Senneville wrote that the document also covers “migration and the environment,” while the initial, but now defunct, draft “was limited to bioethical issues.” He predicted it would be a source of “shockwaves” in the Church, thus continuing a now clear pattern with the documents emerging from the CDF under Fernández’s tenure.
In recent years, the concept of human dignity has become a much employed term, but perhaps little understood. It is used by abortion activists and campaigners for LGBT issues, while conversely clerics also emply the term to resist those same arguments.
But a lack of true understanding of the concept is perhaps resulting to a change in teaching, which has occurred over a longer period of several decades, by which the traditional understanding of human dignity has changed. A clear contrast between the traditional teaching on dignity and its various forms can be seen in the so-called ‘new catechism,’ or the catechism released by Pope John Paul II in the mid-1990’s.
This reporter has published a book-length analysis on the catechism itself – “A Catechism of Errors” – working through its comparisons and contrasts with traditional teaching on a number of topics. {The book is recommended and published with a foreword and preface from theologian-author Don Pietro Leone and former U.S. Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.}
Prior, therefore, to the Monday publication of Dignitas infinita, it seems useful to highlight the Church’s traditional teaching on human dignity, and contrast this to the modern understanding which is now widely accepted. The once distinct kinds of dignity which were clearly taught have now been seemingly quietly abandoned and merged into a new form of dignity.
To quote from the summary of Chapter 6 of “A Catechism of Errors”:
Traditional teaching distinguishes between natural and supernatural dignity. Natural dignity being that which stems from man’s intellectual ability to know and love God, and supernatural being that which comes from the actual love of God. This last form of dignity is the property only of the faithful in the state of grace. Natural dignity can be diminished and lost through our sins, and supernatural dignity is thus also affected by sin. Supernatural dignity is of course the higher form of dignity and that which Catholic teaching has been traditionally chiefly concerned with.
However, the new catechism {representing the new style of teaching} does not specifically deal with supernatural dignity and seems to merge both natural and supernatural dignity into a warped new idea of dignity. The modern understanding both elevates natural dignity and lowers supernatural dignity. Furthermore, the new form of dignity is presented as being that which cannot be lost, despite actual sin.
This dignity is founded chiefly upon freedom, which is held as the chief mark of man’s dignity as a creature of God. Instead of the traditional teaching that man resembles God due to having an intellect and will, the new catechism {and new understanding} teaches that it is liberty which is the main likeness of man to God.
[In the modern understanding} this liberty is consequently upheld at the cost of morality, since the modern understanding teaches that one must always be completely free in conscience, and with his conscience one can perceive the divine law. The error is clear: false dignity leads to a misplaced sense of liberty in all things, which enables man to hold himself as the discoverer and judge of morality and divine law, rather than the Church.
With such a new basis of morality in place the catechism {and new teaching} thus is able to present the false idea of complete equality in dignity, a theme which is justified by the misuse of the form of dignity in the book. Under the new teaching, a great sinner can lay claim to having the same dignity as the greatest saints. The text extends the dignity enjoyed by the baptized faithful to all men, thus removing any distinction between higher and lower dignity and giving to all the dignity reserved for those baptized in a state of grace. Such reasoning makes very possible the erroneous arguments stating that all men are to be saved and that none shall go to hell.
As a final result of both these two aspects, degrading supernatural dignity and then extending it to all men, the Church becomes little more than a charitable organization, according to the new catechism.
The text is keen on promoting the common good, but does so in a manner devoid of reference to a Catholic understanding of the term. It focuses on personal fulfilment rather than the salvation of souls. With this particular emphasis on personal fulfilment comes the ideology of human rights being the guiding principle of all action, instead of the law of God. They even become the moral basis of authority, instead of the traditional teaching which states that authority comes from God.
The passages in the new catechism on the dignity of man present a fundamental shift in morality away from God. The supernatural elements of life and of society are ignored, and the dignity dependent on baptism and the life of grace is de facto extended to the whole world. Humanist, rather than Catholic, is the term which more accurately describes the pages of text which have been the subject of this chapter’s study. Such teaching prepares the way for a future rejection of the sanctity of life and ultimately a rejection of the faith.
The following passages are also taken from Chapter 6 of the aforementioned book on the catechism. Below is found the traditional teaching on human dignity and the first of three sections from the book dealing with the modern understanding of human dignity.
I. Traditional teaching on dignity
We can distinguish between a more earthly, human or natural dignity, and the greater supernatural dignity of man. Just as man has a natural and a supernatural end, so also he has these two kinds of dignity.
i. Natural dignity
Man is made in the image and likeness of God, and his natural end is linked to that natural dignity. St. Thomas distinguishes three ways in which man is thus in the image of God, of which the first pertains to the natural dignity. The angelic doctor writes that we see the image of God in men, “inasmuch as man possesses a natural aptitude for understanding and loving God; and this aptitude consists in the very nature of the mind, which is common to all men.”1 This is to say that the natural end and dignity of man are related to his intellectual ability to know God and love Him. Don Leone mentions that “the particular excellence of intellectuality is its transcendental orientation” and the natural dignity of man as an intellectual creature is found in this natural knowledge and love of God.2
This nature and dignity is affected by sin to a greater and lesser extent. Aquinas notes that there are three goods of human nature.
First are the principles of nature, such as the powers of the soul, which are not affected by sin. Then we have the gift of original justice which was completely lost through original sin. The final good of nature is the inclination to virtue which is diminished by actual sin. Consequently, natural dignity is diminished by our sins: “as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue.”3 Whilst the powers of the soul remain, the dignity related to the natural inclination to virtue is considerably weakened. Indeed, St. Thomas mentions the possibility of a man losing his natural dignity and uses the premise as a defense for the teaching of capital punishment:
“although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast.”4
Both through original and actual sin, natural dignity is attacked and diminished. Natural dignity is the dignity of man in the image and likeness of God who has the natural aptitude to know and love God. Consequently, the more we sin, particularly mortally, then the more this dignity is diminished.
ii. Supernatural dignity
The second manner in which Aquinas notes man to be in the image and likeness of God is the supernatural dignity. This dignity is of a higher nature than the mere natural dignity and nature of man since it “derives from man’s actual knowledge and love of God in conformity with supernatural grace.”5 So whilst the natural dignity of man in the image of God is based upon his ability to know and love God, the supernatural dignity is based in his actual, habitual knowledge of God. St. Thomas describes it thus: “inasmuch as man actually and habitually knows and loves God, though imperfectly; and this image consists in the conformity of grace.”6 Now this supernatural dignity is not found in all men but only in the baptized members of the Church in the state of grace. It is a dignity incumbent upon remaining in the practice of virtue as Aquinas mentions.
Supernatural dignity is of a greater worth than the natural dignity and is the chief dignity which should be discussed in catechetical or moral works. Should this dignity be affected by sin, one can avail of the sacrament of confession in order to regain sanctifying grace and recover this supernatural dignity.7 It is not equal in all, for a great saint who lives the virtues will of course have a greater supernatural dignity than the soul who struggles and falls every day with great temptations to sin.
II. The modern view in the Catechism
Part Three in the new catechism is devoted to the life in Christ, of which the first chapter is entitled “The Dignity of the Human Person.” This manages to avoid the topic of the supernatural dignity of man, dealing instead with the natural dignity. There is mention made of the “vocation to beatitude” and the possibility one has to “conform (or not) to the good promised by God,” but this is not expanded or explained properly.8 Nor is any mention made of the manner in which one might lose supernatural dignity. Indeed as Don Leone mentions, whilst the new catechism mentions a perfection in charity, “it does not identify this charity or holiness with his dignity, nor identify a loss of this charity or holiness with a loss of his dignity.”9
The new catechism {and new understanding} then does not deal with supernatural dignity. However, even the treatment of natural dignity is distorted. Since natural dignity is the only kind discussed, the catechism seems to merge both supernatural and natural together, which results in grave misconceptions about human dignity. Take for example, paragraph 369, which mentions that “man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.” In what way ought one to understand the dignity here mentioned? It cannot be supernatural dignity, since this can indeed be lost through our own free choice to commit mortal sin. Furthermore, supernatural dignity is not found in all men as part of their nature but only in those who live the life of grace. Consequently the catechism must be referring to the natural dignity.
Yet even this understanding needs much clarification: recall that St. Thomas teaches that the only good of nature which is not destroyed or diminished by sin is the first good, the principles and consequent properties of nature such as the powers of the soul.10 This form of natural dignity is the only kind which one can truly say to be an ‘inalienable dignity,’ yet such a distinction is notably lacking in the catechism. Instead one is led to believe that there is only one form of dignity which cannot be lost nor diminished in any way.
i. A dignity founded in freedom
In traditional teaching, dignity consists in man being in the image and likeness of God, since he has a spiritual soul and is endowed with an intellect and will by which he can know and love God. In the baptized member of the Church, the supernatural dignity consists in the further habitual knowledge of God. Yet for the new catechism the chief characteristic of dignity is freedom or liberty. Paragraph 1705 states: “by virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, and outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”11 This is a teaching later taught in the section on prayer: “the dignity of his (God’s) children lies in their freedom.”12
Evidently the new catechism {and modern understanding} places an extreme emphasis upon the notion of freedom and liberty, equating it to being the chief effect of being made in the image of God. Traditional teaching would place the emphasis upon the call to know and love God, but in the new catechism this has been relegated to a secondary position behind the aspect of individual freedom. The consequences of this can be profound and many of the effects will be dealt with in the following chapter.
However, one notable effect will be covered here, namely the extreme primacy in moral matters given to conscience. In paragraph 1738 the catechism describes freedom in moral and religious matters as “an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.”13 This principle is put to troublesome use in section 1778, where the text reads: “it is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law.”14 At first glance this might seen innocuous, yet when reading through carefully one will note that it is the conscience, rather than divine revelation or the Church, which is upheld as the chief vicar of morality. The over emphasis on freedom is thus seen to be producing its first fruit by attributing to man’s conscience a power which it does not have. The conscience thus becomes akin to an infallible power for judging divine revelation.
On the contrary, Fr. John Laux describes conscience as the “connecting link between law and particular acts...the judgment passed by our reason on the moral worth of our actions already done, being done, or to be done in the future.”15 {He further notes that conscience is the “application of the natural law to our thoughts, words, and deeds.” It is not, however, the sole discoverer of the Divine Laws, since they are revealed}.
Such teaching presents a far clearer understanding of the importance but limitations of conscience. The new catechism {and modern understanding} continues further in mentioning that the conscience “perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law,” since it depicts the divine law as something within man, which one only need examine oneself in order to find. In reality, divine law has been revealed and given to us by God.16 The divine law is not discoverable by a conscience acting alone as if it could discern the principles of morality independently. Rather, the divine law is revealed by God and promulgated by the Church.
— Fr. Laux writes that “more clearly and fully than by the Natural Law, God has made His will known by supernatural revelation, especially in the Old and New Testaments. This revealed law is called the Divine Positive Law.” —
Liberty should not be an end in itself but rather the means which we employ in order to attain our supernatural end. However the new catechism places an undue emphasis upon liberty as the chief aspect of human dignity and as a result the actions which stem from a free exercise of this understanding of dignity are seen to be inalienable. Such a teaching results in the present day understanding of one’s conscience being the ultimate decider in all matters of morality.17
The remainder of this Chapter 6 can be found in the full book A Catechism of Errors, available in paperback or at this link in an ebook version from Loreto Publications.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a, q93, a4.
Don Pietro Leone, The Family Under Attack, 13.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a 2ae, q85, a1.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2a 2ae, q64, a2, ad3. Emphasis author’s own.
Leone, The Family Under Attack, 16.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a, q93, a4.
cf Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a, q89, a4.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (CCC), Question 1700.
Leone, The Family Under Attack, 46.
cf Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a 2ae, q85, a1
CCC, 1705.
CCC, 2736.
CCC, 1738.
CCC, 1778.
Fr. John Laux, Catholic Morality, (Rockford, Illinois, TAN Books, 1990), 17.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a 2ae, q91, a4. Laux, Catholic Morality, 12.
As is the current situation with the divorced and ‘re-married’ being un-canonically ‘permitted’ to receive Holy Communion, using their own conscience as the chief guide. cf Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8, §303.