Editor’s note: This is the first of several CWR essays that will analyze various aspects of the just released document Dignitas Infinita.
———–
I will leave it up to the actual philosophers and theologians to comment on ways in which the new Declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Dignitas Infinita explains the fundamentals of Catholic teaching on human dignity. My task here is to look at what the document says about women and gender ideology.
After a section explaining the Church’s teaching on human dignity in general, the document presents a list of issues that turn on an understanding of human dignity, including surrogacy, violence against women, gender ideology and sex change.
The section on gender theory centers on two problems. First, in gender ideology’s emphasis on self-determination and definition, it rejects the giftedness of life and personhood:
Desiring a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes, apart from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift, amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God, entering into competition with the true God of love revealed to us in the Gospel. (57)
Secondly, the declaration critiques gender theory’s attempt to diminish or even destroy sex differences: Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity. (59)
In a separate section—a single paragraph on “Sex change”—the declaration affirms persons as unions of body and soul:
Such a truth deserves to be remembered, especially when it comes to sex change, for humans are inseparably composed of both body and soul. In this, the body serves as the living context in which the interiority of the soul unfolds and manifests itself, as it does also through the network of human relationships. Constituting the person’s being, the soul and the body both participate in the dignity that characterizes every human. (60)
This is all good as far as it goes: a condemnation of “gender ideology” and a rejection of attempts to change sex.
The problem, really, is in the boilerplate and vague nature of the discussion. The document collects various previous statements—many from Pope Francis and simply presents them again. This is consistent with much modern Church-speak in which ideals are highlighted, problems are critiqued, but all in a very general way, as if they just … happen. Violence and discrimination against women is a global (and age-old) problem, yes, but there are certain cultural, social and, yes, religious contexts in which women’s lives are particularly constrained, aren’t there? Surrogacy is a growing problem, which Pope Francis has consistently and admirably condemned, but it occurs within specific economic and legal contexts: that is, when those who can afford to pay poor women to bear children are allowed by law to do so.
And so “gender ideology.”
Now, considering the issues of sex and gender are only a small element of this document, one cannot expect a deep dive. A detailed examination of “gender ideology” is also challenging because whatever “gender ideology” is changes on an almost daily basis. To take just one, but important example, for a while we were supposed to be thinking of all of this in the context of “gender dysphoria”—but that is currently being rejected by activists and commenters because it implies that gender fluidity is a problem, rather than just another expression of the beauty of human diversity.
In short—
Out: the poor, suffering gender dysphoric who’d like permission to get some hormones and surgery.
In: the joyful gender fluid who doesn’t need your permission to get surgery, hormones or enter whatever space he wants to.
So, yes, a more general treatment is understandable and perhaps even necessary, considering space limitations and the incoherence of the topic at hand.
Unavoidable, perhaps, but also unfortunate, considering first the rather basic point that should underlay any Catholic discussion of the matter: “Gender” is not a real, constituent element of human existence. Sex is. The notion that I can change my “gender” which is somehow both the same and not the same as my sex—and society should bend to my sense of self has as much validity as the notion that I, a person of French-Canadian-Scotch-Irish extraction can claim, I don’t know—a Malaysian identity. Or that my 19-year-old son can claim, when he enters a bar, that he should be treated as if he’s 21.
The Church, whose thought is formed in a framework of reason and fidelity to material reality, should be asking: Why is “gender” fluid, but race, ethnicity, and age are not?
The reliance on the hand-waving about a largely undefined “gender ideology” is also unfortunate because it works against discussing the profound violations of human dignity that are occurring under the mantle of this movement and often protected by policy and law. Children and young people who are being led to believe that changing sex is not only possible, but an answer to their pain, halting puberty, taking cross-sex hormones, amputating healthy body parts. The embrace of gendered stereotypes and caricatures of masculinity and femininity as definitions of male and femaleness. The insistence on the acceptance of paraphilias—that is primarily male fetishes acting out female caricatures—as protected behaviors and identities. The violation of women’s dignity as they watch men attempt to appropriate female identity and then push their way into women’s spaces, ranging from athletic teams to restrooms to prisons to women’s domestic violence shelters.
It would be an interesting shift if teaching and authoritative Catholic voices began addressing this issue, not in such vague academic terms, but in terms of these ongoing violations of human dignity being promoted by those with economic interests to convince humanity of a division between “true self” and body—and who spend money in the endless quest to attempt to make the latter match the former.
Finally, there’s a loophole in this document, as in most contemporary Church treatments of human dignity. As observers of the Catholic scene well know, it is not uncommon for institutions to appeal to “Catholic values” of “respect” and “acceptance” as a way of undermining authentic Catholic anthropology, for example, in acceptance of male, trans-identifying students to Catholic women’s colleges.
The question is simple: does respect for the dignity of each person mean accepting as true and real every claim a person makes about himself? Does it mean treating a person—socially, culturally, legally—as whatever they claim to be?
That’s the key here: The core value of gender ideology, no matter what its current iteration—is that biological sex is (sort of) irrelevant and that this thing called “gender” is determinate of how a person should be viewed and treated. Advocates of this view insist that living out a respect for others and their human dignity requires us to, frankly, play along with every bit of it. This is, not surprisingly, the focus of the response of New Ways Ministry to this declaration:
The new Vatican document, Dignitas Infinita, fails terribly by offering transgender and nonbinary people not infinite, but limited human dignity. While it lays out a wonderful rationale for why each human being, regardless of condition in life, must be respected, honored, and loved, it does not apply this principle to gender-diverse people…
…The document’s attempt to uphold and defend human dignity is weakened by its stunning lack of awareness of the actual lives of transgender and nonbinary people.
The section on gender identity in this declaration would have been greatly strengthened by repeating this from earlier in the document: “Indeed, there is an ever-growing risk of reducing human dignity to the ability to determine one’s identity and future independently of others, without regard for one’s membership in the human community” (26).
Or, one could add, without regard for the material reality of human nature.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
As suspected, it appears the Vatican does not define what it means by “gender ideology”. So it cam mean whatever they want it to mean. It probably can mean different things at different times.
I suspect the main purpose of the document is to promote homosexuality in some way. Homosexuality has become the main theme of this papacy. They are laying the groundwork for change in the Catholic concept of homosexuality as a sin. They will probably say that due to “the inherent dignity of every human person” the church has lost the ability to call homosexuality a sin.
It’s an infinitely undignified oversight! My cursory glance of Infinite Dignity failed to find mention of homosexuality. Perhaps Tucho slid it in the “Violence Against Women” section….or forced it into an obscure footnote referencing fruitloops of Amoris laetitia.
The medium is the message, so said Marshall McLuhan. The medium here is Tucho and Bergoglio. At this point in time they could write a fifth gospel and no one would give a darn. Whatever good they have to offer has already been on the table since our Lord walked the earth. The rest of what they push out is so contaminated by themselves one fears to scan it for fear of falling into error. And there is so much yada yada yada…
The Bergoglian debacle had best go mum until it arrives at its termination.
Robert Royal sees the same thing James in his column today: What is good has already been said before. What is new is at best ambiguous. See, A Dignity Still to be Determined:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/
Here’s my suggestion regarding all these so-called social/political/psychological/biological conundrums that apparently plague the simple-minded of today’s culture: just apply common sense along with a hefty dose of TruthSpeak to most problems in life. Don’t overcomplicate what has always been taken for granted and, in all cases, leave your fleeting emotions at the door as they only muddy up most people’s already addled brains. With that, the CDF (or whatever dumb name they’ve given it since Francis’ arrival), can shut off the lights, close the door behind them and go on a very long mission trip to Africa to better understand why the Catholic faith is thriving there and dying in Europe and elsewhere.
Welborn concludes: “The section on gender identity in this declaration would have been greatly strengthened by repeating this from earlier in the document [….]”
Indeed, not mentioned at all is another earlier document altogether, Veritatis Splendor, which teaches more broadly and more succinctly,both, about the given reality of moral absolutes: ““The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95). In contrast, in its 116 footnotes, the document cites Fratelli Tutti eighteen times.
Two added points:
FIRST, Section 47 includes footnote #89 citing the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Vitae (22 February 1987): “The practice of keeping alive human embryos in vivo or in vitro for experimental or commercial purposes is totally opposed to human dignity” (I, 4): AAS 80 (1988), 82.
The new Declaration, at this point, might have included for even better overall advantage this solidly grounded and more inclusive perspective from the same Donum Vitae, as the basis for our “universal aspiration for fraternity” (phrase from Dignitas Infinita, n. 6): “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body” (Donum Vitae, Introduction, n. 3).
SECOND, those better qualified will celebrate or pause at selected specifics, but this document does seem to minimize any narrowly humanistic interpretation of otherwise vaguely-undefined “fraternity.” Still (I humbly submit), in its 12,000 words it declines to clarify/reverse the confusion and damage done in the earlier 5,000 words of Fiducia Supplicans.
A single sentence, now for consistency, erasing the earlier validation of “irregular couples” in place of individual “persons,” might easily have sufficed.
I decided to look into the document. I find that I cannot connect with it; its language lacks clarity and substance. It looks like someone had one purpose, to tick the boxes. Funnily enough, the document reminded me of the political parties’ programs which also attempt to tick as many diverse boxes as possible.
I do not understand why there is a need to restate the Church’s teaching re: various issues “ticked” in the boxes. Of course, it is possible to do it if the document addresses previously considered issues on a new, deeper and more powerful level. But this document is anything but deep and powerful.
The chapter about a novel problem, ‘Sex change’ seems just as hollow. I perceive so-called “gender ideology” with its normalized mutilation of children to be a final step towards undoing the primary bricks of creation, male and female (not just human beings but what they represent symbolically as well i.e. metaphysics). A previous step of undoing was so-called “same-sex marriage” which has symbolically undone the marriage as it has been known for all human history i.e. between man and woman (with variations like polygamy and polyandry, but always “he” and “she”). It is a very weighty stuff which goes far beyond what is seen. To my mind, those two steps are attempting to reverse God’s order that is a biological order as well. It is an attempt to make an anti-creation while borrowing from the creation.
Both phenomena, “gender ideology” and “same sex marriage” is an assault on the objective truth (creation, evolution etc.). It proclaims the abnormality to be a norm and demands that the Church does the same. The Church is trying hard to bend to the world without losing the revelation but it is impossible. It was possible before to bend to various world rulers because the rules did not try to destroy and remake God’s creation; now to bend to them means to agree with their anti-creation. This is the essence of the current problem.
In my opinion, if the Church desires to address “gender ideology” it must do so from a position of the absolute truth, as it is expressed in the revelation and a common sense. There is even no need “to tick” human dignity there. The problem is about “I will” and a refusal of a proud human mind to accept a very basic truth (known to all small children before they get educated), that a person with male genitalia is a man and a person with female genitalia is a woman and that it is normal for those two to marry.
Anna, I’m going to recommend that the next time this Vatican attempts to elucidate Church teaching, they consult with you first. You have more common sense than the knuckleheads at the top of the Church’s present hierarchy.
LOL, Deacon! Yes, Anna, you go girl!😊
It’s as if Cardinal Ladaria and his team wrote it, then Tucho and friends all added various ambiguities. 💋
Amy asks: [D]oes respect for the dignity of each person mean accepting as true and real every claim a person makes about himself? Does it mean treating a person—socially, culturally, legally—as whatever they claim to be?
Article 59 of The Declaration answers: Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can EACH PERSON fully discover THEMselves, THEIR dignity, and THEIR identity.
The Church here seems to agree with contemporary gender ideology that every single individual person has plural selves, dignity, and identity, choosing among the likes of “s/he, it, they.”
To Meiron’s comment in the last sentence, not necessarily. Many are likely not aware that they – their has been a substitute for he/she – his/hers for decades when wanting to either avoid direct identification of someone’s gender (especially in conversations when doing so would, e.g., violate a confidence) or to avoid repeatedly using male and female pronouns in the same instance. This usage was just somewhat recently recognized “officially” as proper American English by the editorial board at Merriam-Webster.
Do you know the ontological or philosophical principles Merriam-Webster’s editorial board in 2019 relied upon as foundation for their new ‘official’ usage rule?
No, we cannot know since there was no principle. Instead, ‘it’ based ‘its’ rule on popular gender ideology. As if they were not enough, they cited one Emily Dickinson letter wherein the great and mightly little Emily brazenly (mistakenly perhaps) matched an antecedent singular with a subsequent plural. It’s all Emily’s fault, bless their little soul. Q.E.D.
So there is that, and there is not here.
Great comment meiron. I am by far not an English major, but it drives me crazy when I read a news story such as, ” there was a serious automobile wreck with one person injured. They took “THEM” by ambulance to the hospital.
They just will not say he or she.
As someone who taught English for 25 years, I tend to be a pedant when it comes to grammar, but you are correct. If the antecedent (in this case, person) is singular, the pronouns that refer to it should also be singular. I don’t know how the original language of this passage reads, but the English translation does suggest that a single person can be referred to by a plural pronoun, like those who have bought into gender ideology and insist that one person can be a “they/them.” (I’m so relieved I retired before being required to teach dozens of made-up pronouns — zie, zim, zer, zem, ad infinitum ad nauseam.)
English used to use “he” for every instance of a singular third person pronoun where the gender was unknown or ambiguous.
Now we tend to use “they”, but this has to do with feminism, not transgenderism. Making the masculine the default for nearly everything annoyed them.
The Italian and Spanish versions of article 59 used the singular third person feminine.
Anna above – “But this document is anything but deep and powerful”.
From what I’ve seen so far, “Amen”.
We’ve had far more cogent statements recently, not from the Vatican though.
The strategy seems to be a word here, a word there. Then another document with a word here and a word there. Because it’s only one or two words, the document stands. It’s the grinding of an inch at a time off the top of a dam. Slowly, patiently, until one day there is no longer a lake but just a flowing river. Where there once was a no now there is a yes. Move along folks; no heresy to see here.
Here was Elton John at the time beseeching the lords of peace to make an acceptance and a codicil among homosexuals and homosexualism.
“Prophetic”. “Fatherly”. “Objective”. “Disinterested”. “Dispassionate”. Seducing sympathy.
He took blues and jazz and made a style of them for his pitches. For example “Holy Moses” sounds unholy but also like “Old Man Moses”.
What does Moses have anything to do with it.
The English monarchs took up with this as suited to their true beliefs in “Jesus King of Peace”. Keep it low-key.
Elton John – Border Song (Elton John 7 of 13)
sydlivy – 1,172,755 views – Jan 12, 2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm7b-32Mpbs
https://genius.com/Elton-john-border-song-lyrics
This is from the same Vatican that sainted the man who turned his back on the pedophile priest situation so take it with a grain of salt.
I’ve observed from personal experience in the parish & community that it often takes being a deviant to recognize another fellow traveler. Good people more commonly fail to believe deviancy in others, unless they have a background in criminal investigations.
It takes one to know one.
DI says nothing that would disturb the conscience of those who practice contraception, fornication, adultery, sodomy or pederasty – unless a “blessed” couple should want a child from surrogacy. Should we conclude that such couples should adopt children? 👨👨👧👩👩👦👩👩👧👧👨👨👧👧👨👨👧👦👩👩👧👦👩👩👦👦👨👨👦👦
More, how can we make sense of Tucho’s poetry and prose if girls want to become boys? 💋 Such a choice might be a welcome thought for Bishop Zanchetta, but not for Fr. Rupnik. What a vexing issue for this pontificate…
Tucho has it wrong on just war doctrine.
>The notion that I can change my “gender” which is somehow both the same and not the same as my sex
I’m unsure if you are making this claim for a Catholic POV or a societal POV. If the latter, the activists that you mentioned earlier only advocate for sex and gender to be separate.
>and society should bend to my sense of self has as much validity as the notion that I, a person of French-Canadian-Scotch-Irish extraction can claim, I don’t know—a Malaysian identity. Or that my 19-year-old son can claim, when he enters a bar, that he should be treated as if he’s 21.
You are drawing a false equivalency from the POV of the advocates which is why your argument does not work when used on them.
Advocates are not asking you to “bend” reality to match a person’s self image. They are asking you to accept the reality that your specific religious are not 100% certain. It’s not as if the Creator hand picked the chromosomes that goes into making each person. There’s plenty of science out there that supports trans people being born the way they are. So when one person’s religious beliefs clash with a non-religious innate part of another, the religion beliefs are the ones to be suspended.
Trans people are not born the way they are, and there is no scientific evidence to support that falsehood. Chromosomes do not lie. You are biologically male or female, that’s it. And psychologically disturbed Trans people are certainly asking us to bend the nature of reality to participate in their lie. Any thinking person realizes this. You’re just parroting talking points.
Religious views aside, there’s no science that denies DNA is unchangeable.
Asking people to call you by the opposite sex pronouns and treat you as the opposite sex is not asking you to consider that your views are not 100% certain. It is asking you to discard your own views and act based on their views.
There is a fair amount of research that has showed that the gay and lesbian populations decrease (and sometimes disappear) as the transgender populations increase. Very odd if they were born that way. There are more that show that these people shift their identity around a substantial amount. Just to make it clear that it is their *views* that are being rejected, not their inherent knowledge of an innate part of themselves. They are scarcely 100% certain.
Quite apart from this, there is a rather high percentage of male inmates who decide to identify as female to get moved to the women’s prison, where they proceed to impregnate the inmates there. Generally speaking, these men have already been convicted of rape, and most women in prison have been victims of rape, sexual abuse, or domestic abuse. This is the sort of objective reality that many “advocates” don’t pay attention to, and the sort of policies they advocate.
Just a very good post and instructive comprehension, may I commend them.
Thank you, Amy.
Today’s WSJ article headline is “Vatican ReJects Sex Change As Harmful.” So I believe we should be thankful when the Vatican gets one right in a way that the secular media delivers the right headline message.
Just hope that for Pope Francis it isn’t just a head fake, as when he describes abortion as murder but then welcomes, embraces and implicitly endorses rabidly pro abortion politicians.