The Vatican and Human Dignity
The Vatican and Human Dignity
A feminist commentary on Dignitas Infinita
This is my letter to The Tablet (10th April 2024), on the Vatican document Dignitas Infinita. What follows is a longer reflection on that document.
On Monday, 8th April, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — CDF), published its Declaration on Human Dignity, Dignitas Infinita. The document, which took five years to prepare and was redrafted several times before being approved by Pope Francis, is published under the names of Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery, and Msgr. Armando Matteo, Secretary for the Doctrinal Section.
Cardinal Fernández was appointed by Pope Francis in 2023 with a clear brief to change how those charged with protecting and promoting church doctrine operated, away from a “desk-bound theology” towards one that was more rooted in and responsive to the complex realities of people’s lives. In his motu proprio, “Ad theologiam promovendam”, published on 1st November 2023, Francis makes clear the kind of theological transformation he seeks. He writes that theology is being
called to a turning point, to a paradigm shift … that commits it, first and foremost, to be a fundamentally contextual theology, capable of reading and interpreting the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women daily live, in different geographical, social and cultural environments, and having as its archetype the Incarnation of the eternal Logos, its entering into the culture, worldview and religious tradition of a people. From here, theology cannot but develop into a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian denominations and different religions, openly confronting everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Indeed, the need for dialogue is intrinsic to the human being and to the whole of creation …
So how far does Dignitas Infinita reflect these changes in the style and ethos of the Church’s official theology? The answer is that it does and it doesn’t. It’s a curate’s egg.
Defending Dignity
The Catholic Church is perhaps the only global institution with the reach and the influence to uphold human dignity and rights in the face of the growing threats posed by various forms of political and religious extremism, the widening injustices of global economics, the destruction of environments and habitats upon which poor communities and non-human species depend, and the escalation of war and violence in many regions.
The document clearly and unambiguously defends the inviolable dignity of each and every human irrespective of age, physical or mental capacities or any other factor, including criminality and wrongdoing. It reiterates the rejection of the death penalty, “regardless of the circumstances”, (#34) and of the practice of torture. The section on war affirms “the inalienable right to self-defence and the responsibility to protect those whose lives are threatened” (#38), while being eloquent in its condemnation of the misery and destruction and the contradiction of human dignity that are a consequence of all wars. So unlike capital punishment, where the prohibition has become absolute, there is still limited acceptance of some possible justification for war, but a strong orientation towards total condemnation, and no acceptance at all of war fought in the name of religion.
Poverty and the plight of migrants are now clarion calls to humanity in all church teaching documents, and this document is no exception. Dignitas Infinita quotes Pope Francis:
Some people are born into economically stable families, receive a fine education, grow up well nourished, or naturally possess great talent. They will certainly not need a proactive state; they need only claim their freedom. Yet, the same rule clearly does not apply to a disabled person, to someone born in dire poverty, to those lacking a good education and with little access to adequate health care. If a society is governed primarily by the criteria of market freedom and efficiency, there is no place for such persons, and fraternity will remain just another vague ideal. [Fratelli Tutti #109]
This should be compulsory reading for all Catholics seeking political office and indeed for all Catholic voters.
Ecological issues feature less prominently than they have in other documents issued during Francis’s papacy. I wonder about the claim that, while other creatures should be respected and valued, “the concept of dignity is reserved for the human being”. (#28). This contradicts Pope Francis’s reference in Laudato Si’ to “the intrinsic dignity of the world”. (#115)
Overall, there is much to affirm and inspire the urgent need to defend human dignity against many encroaching threats, including the threats posed by Digital Violence addressed in the last section of the document (#61 and 62). The section on The Marginalization of People with Disabilities (#53) is excellent, and I also agree with the sections on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (#51 and 52), including the caveat: “Certainly, the dignity of those who are critically or terminally ill calls for all suitable and necessary efforts to alleviate their suffering through appropriate palliative care and by avoiding aggressive treatments or disproportionate medical procedures.” (#52) This principle is too often neglected by those who would fetishise the lives of the dying by extreme and futile attempts to prolong lives mired in terminal anguish. Despite its lack of engagement with women’s voices, I’m broadly in agreement with the section on Surrogacy (#48), though it could demonstrate a deeper understanding of the mother-child relationship in pregnancy, childbirth and neonatal life. It addresses at some length the dignity of the child and tags on a short paragraph about the dignity of the surrogate mother.
Violating Dialogue
The document’s major failure, amounting to a violation of the dignity of those whom it speaks for and about, but never with, is the lack of any dialogue with or meaningful representation of women.1 Mother Teresa (St Teresa of Calcutta) is invoked in passing for her opposition to abortion, but not a single woman is referenced in 116 endnotes. Most of these are admittedly references to popes (the endless self-referentiality of papal citations is a tedious aspect of documents like this), but there are also several references to male theologians and philosophers.
The slogan “Nothing about us without us” should be shouted from the rooftops of the Vatican by women, especially those who dedicate their lives to scholarship that seeks to inform and enrich Catholic teaching (theologians, ethicists, biblical scholars, philosophers, and gender theorists). Calls to respect women’s dignity ring hollow when the men writing these documents think women have said nothing of consequence worth quoting or engaging with, particularly on issues that impact upon the most intimate areas of women’s lives.
If Pope Francis is serious about promoting the participation, representation, and visibility of women at all levels of church life, then he should tell his doctrinal henchmen never to produce another official document that doesn’t demonstrate dialogue with women. This would not mean only women who parrot everything the magisterium permits them to say. It would involve taking with the utmost seriousness the complex and sometimes intractable dilemmas that hove into view if one understands how the lives of women and girls are significantly shaped around sexual and maternal relationships — those which nourish female dignity and its flourishing, and those which abuse and violate that dignity.
To engage in dialogue with women scholars would mean taking seriously Pope Francis’s repeated calls for dialogue. It would mean following the wise guidance for dialogue that he issued to married couples in Amoris Laetitia (#136-141), which can be applied more widely to all situations of seeking understanding and mutual respect in the face of obstacles and difficulties.
I ask myself what Dignitas Infinita might be like if it had taken seriously these guidelines by engaging with women:
138. Develop the habit of giving real importance to the other person. … Never downplay what they say or think, even if you need to express your own point of view. Everyone has something to contribute, because they have their life experiences, they look at things from a different standpoint and they have their own concerns, abilities and insights. We ought to be able to acknowledge the other person’s truth, the value of his or her deepest concerns, and what it is that they are trying to communicate, however aggressively. We have to put ourselves in their shoes and try to peer into their hearts, to perceive their deepest concerns and to take them as a point of departure for further dialogue.
139. Keep an open mind. Don’t get bogged down in your own limited ideas and opinions, but be prepared to change or expand them. The combination of two different ways of thinking can lead to a synthesis that enriches both. The unity that we seek is not uniformity, but a “unity in diversity”, or “reconciled diversity”. … A patronizing tone only serves to hurt, ridicule, accuse and offend others.
If such wisdom is true for married couples, should it not be just as true for men and women who together dedicate themselves to theological and philosophical scholarship? If there is no dialogue in the community of scholars, there is neither wisdom nor truth for these do not emerge through silencing, exclusion, and androcentric intellectual domination.
So, with those comments in mind, here are my criticisms of Dignitas Infinitas. Predictably perhaps, my reservations and criticisms are to do with the lengthy section on Abortion (#47), the section on Gender Theory (#55-59), and the section on Sex Change (#60).
Abortion:
The authors of this document will never face the anguished reality of abortion dilemmas. There is now a vast body of scholarship by women ethicists, philosophers, and theologians, including Catholics, which could inform a more nuanced, pastorally sensitive, and ethically responsible approach to this complex issue, based on an honest dialogue about the existential challenges women face.2
This would mean recognising the extent to which a woman’s fears for her ability to raise a child in situations of desperate poverty makes this a social and economic issue, and not just one of personal moral responsibility. It would entail shifting the focus to men’s responsibility for their sexuality, taking into account the ways in which male violence, sexual coercion, and irresponsibility about the consequences of casual sexual encounters constitute a major factor in unwanted pregnancies. As Gabrielle Stanley Blair argues in her book Ejaculate Responsibly:
At any point, men could have eliminated elective abortions in a very short amount of time— a matter of weeks — without ever touching an abortion law, without legislating about women’s bodies, without even mentioning women. All men had to do was ejaculate responsibly. They chose not to. Today, they continue to choose not to.
Respecting women’s dignity would mean respecting women’s freedom of conscience and their right to make their own moral decisions about whether and when to have children, which includes access to safe, reliable contraception. This is especially important in situations in which women have little control over sexual relationships, and no power to resist demands for sex by their husbands or others. And it would entail recognising that there are situations in which, with great anguish and regret, some women terminate pregnancies for the protection and defence of their own lives, or because of their altruistic concerns to provide adequate care for the children they already have.
Moreover, we have seen in the US and in other Far Right political situations around the world that the criminalisation of abortion has little to do with the promotion of human dignity, justice, and rights, especially for the poorest and most marginalised women. It is the ultimate weapon of a certain kind of machismo politics that seeks total control over women’s lives.
Gender Theory:
Some might welcome the shift from references to “gender ideology” to “gender theory”, but this is a cosmetic change. There is a woeful lack of scholarly engagement and respect for gender theorists in this sweeping polemic against gender theory. I suspect that sound bites condemning Judith Butler constitute the sum total of the authors’ engagement with the complex, multi-facetted and contested ideas that constitute academic debates and theories about gender.
I share the reservations of many others about the dramatic turn in recent years, from gender theory to increasingly radicalised gender politics. Particularly in light of the publication in the UK of “The Cass Report”, which expresses grave concerns about the NHS’s use of puberty blockers and other medical and surgical treatments of children and young people with gender dysphoria, it’s clear that something has gone badly wrong in the field of gender and ethics in western societies. The Catholic Church could have an important ethical contribution to make, if the magisterium didn’t indulge in such dogmatic caricaturisations of complex theoretical and ethical issues.
If the Vatican wants to challenge gender ideology (which is a much narrower concept than gender theory), then it should pay heed to those guidelines for dialogue I mentioned earlier. Listen, understand, engage, and then you might be able to offer a response that respects the dignity of the other by manifesting your own dignity in the way you respond.
Here is a quote:
Another prominent aspect of gender theory is that it intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference. This foundational difference is not only the greatest imaginable difference but is also the most beautiful and most powerful of them. In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvelous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world. (#58)
Oh dear. Where to begin? As Dorothy Sayers wrote in her 1946 essay, “The-Human Not-Quite-Human”, women are “‘the opposite sex’—(though why ‘opposite’ I do not know; what is the ‘neighbouring sex’?)”3
If the men of the Vatican believe that sexual difference is the greatest possible difference between humans, we women face a hopeless task. How can they hear us, how can they respect us, how can they even include us in their understanding of what it means to be human, what it means to live a life of dignity, if we are so radically other that there is no greater difference in creation? Yet they speak for us and about us without us, formulate rules as to how we should live, how we should love, how we should conceive and bear children. There are countless ways in which humans differ from one another, and sexual difference alone cannot bear the weight that it carries in modern church teaching.
But there’s another problem. Consider Pope Francis’s understanding of gender and ecclesiology, repeated time and time again like a mantra every time he is asked to address a question about women’s roles, especially regarding the priesthood:
In Catholic ecclesiology there are two dimensions to consider: the Petrine dimension, from the apostle Peter, and the apostolic college, which is the pastoral activity of the bishops; and the Marian dimension, which is the feminine dimension of the Church … The Church is a woman. … It is a spousal mystery. And in light of this mystery you will understand the reason for these two dimensions. The Petrine dimension, which is the bishops, and the Marian dimension, which is the maternity of the Church ... A Church does not exist without this feminine dimension, because she herself is feminine (Holy See Press Office: 2016).4
More recently, here is how Vatican News reported his remarks to members of the International Theological Commission in November 2023:
Pope Francis highlighted the feminine dimension of the Church on Thursday, emphasizing the need for women’s perspective in theology. “Women have a different capacity for theological reflection than we men do,” the Pope said. …
“The Church is woman,” he said, continuing his reflection. “And if we do not understand what woman is or what the theology of womanhood is, we will never understand what the Church is.” He described the “masculinizing” of the Church as a “great sin,” which has yet to be resolved.
The Pope appealed to a distinction proposed by Jesuit theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, who described a “Petrine” or ministerial principle, and a “Marian” or mystical principle. “The Marian is more important than the Petrine,” Pope Francis said, “because there is the bride Church, the woman Church, without being masculine.”
This should lead not only to more women represented in the ITC, but also to greater reflection on the Church as woman and as bride. “This is a task I ask of you, please. ‘Demasculinize’ the Church.”
Well, as I’ve suggested, if women have so much to contribute, where is evidence of dialogue with women theologians in Dignitas Infinita?
But if the Church is a woman, there are no women, for the idea of “Woman” encompasses everybody and every body. In this account, incarnate sexual difference is dissolved into gendered symbolism in which ultimately, only the male body signifies. He is woman and bride, priest and bridegroom. Here, papal theology and trans ideology join hands. In both cases, an abstract concept of femininity is colonised by sexual male bodies, and any possible language of incarnate female life is erased. The Church is a woman. A trans woman is a woman. So what is a female person other than a procreative mammal and an idea in the minds of men?
Sex Change:
There is a welcome acknowledgment that “a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities. However, in this case, such a medical procedure would not constitute a sex change in the sense intended here.” (#60) A growing number of people with various forms of DSDs (Differences in Sex Development) have objected to the appropriation of “intersex” in the politicisation of gender and identity, which is why there is now a tendency to omit the “I” from LGBTQ+. Many people with DSDs do not experience gender dysphoria.
But if we bear in mind the omission of women from this document, and the claim that the Church is a woman, then it makes no sense for this document to claim that:
Constituting the person’s being, the soul and the body both participate in the dignity that characterizes every human. Moreover, the body participates in that dignity as it is endowed with personal meanings, particularly in its sexed condition. It is in the body that each person recognizes himself or herself as generated by others, and it is through their bodies that men and women can establish a loving relationship capable of generating other persons. (#60)
I think I’ve made clear why these are meaningless platitudes. In church teaching, “Woman” is nothing but a mute and radically othered sex. She is a romantic fantasy and an idealised concept that can be plundered and appropriated in the service of a theology that perpetuates the violation of the dignity and respect owed to the incarnate female person, by rendering her absent from the site of her own linguistic and bodily presence.
Conclusion
This is a long commentary that needs further development. I offer it here as some preliminary thoughts, written in a spirit of frustration verging on desolation, for this magnificent vision of justice rooted in the intrinsic dignity of the human person is undermined by a fundamental violation of the principles it claims to uphold.
For further reflection on human dignity and women in church teaching, the following essays by me might be of interest: “Human Dignity and Rights in the Context of the Sacramental Priesthood”: Interdisciplinary journal for Religion and Transformation in Society; 02 July 2020 (open access); “Dignity, Difference and Rights: a Gendered Theological Analysis”: Louvain Studies, Volume: 40, Issue: 1, 2017: 58-81, DOI: 10.2143/LS.40.1.3206245
I have written extensively on abortion in the context of women’s dignity and rights, as have many other Catholic women scholars. The above points are developed at greater length, with references to others working in this field, in some of the essays and opinion pieces in these links. This is just a small selection:
“The Abortion Question: why hard cases make bad law”: The Tablet, 21st June 2023.
“The informed integrity of our discussions rarely finds its way into public Catholic discourse”: The Tablet, 29 June 2022.
“Tina Beattie reflects on Irish Abortion Referendum”: Independent Catholic News (ICN) 27th May 2018.
“Who speaks for the Catholic Church? Women, abortion and theological ethics”: forum contribution to Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church (CTEWC), 31st August 2016.
“Dignity Beyond Rights: Human Development in the Context of the Capabilities Approach and Catholic Social Teaching”: Australian eJournal of Theology 22.3, December 2015).
“Catholicism, Choice and Consciousness: A Feminist Theological Perspective on Abortion”, International Journal of Public Theology 4 (2010): 51-75
I’ve taken this quote from an article I recommend: Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, “Opposite Sexes or Neighboring Sexes? C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and the Psychology of Gender”: Trinity 2007 (Vol LXX, No. 5, p 21-31).
I’ve written on the dangers of the kind of nuptial theology cited by Pope Francis, most recently in relation to priestly formation and the sex abuse crisis: “Theological (De)Formations? The Sex Abuse Crisis in the Context of Nuptial Ecclesiology and the Theology of Priesthood.” Journal of Moral Theology 3 (CTEWC Book Series 3): 195–212. https://doi.org/10.55476/001c.72065 (open access)