Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 75(2)  May 2025

Dignitas Infinita – Dignity within New Parameters of Human Existence.

Luke Macnamara OSB
Monk of Glenstal Abbey / Lecturer in Sacred Scripture, St Patrick’s Pontifical University Maynooth, Ireland.

The declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Infinita (DI), presents the Church’s teaching on human dignity in the midst of various challenges in the contemporary world. This broad dialogue is evidenced by the repeated references (DI §2; 14; 23; 56; 63) to the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and also by the attention to many contemporary situations in which human dignity is threatened (DI §32-62). While the UDHR reflects a universal aspiration to promote human dignity, few agree as to how human dignity might be defined, or what foundation it might have. At the first UN general assembly a draft text of what was to become the UDHR was discussed. There was an urgency to preventing a repeat of the atrocities of the Second World War and this was the impetus for the publication of the UDHR on 10th December 1948.  The impetus for the declaration was a desire to promote a common agreement on the rights of every human being and to avoid the gross infringement of human dignity of so many different categories of people during the war. Dignitas Infinita has an analogous double perspective in view. It first seeks to reiterate the Church’s understanding of human dignity which underpins the associated rights and duties and also to reflect on situations in which human dignity is threatened today.

The long gestation of this declaration (a period of 5 years) reflects the attention given to this question. The initial draft was rejected and a second draft was produced and presented to the Holy Father who requested that in addition to the presentation of the infinite dignity of humanity, attention should be given to areas where dignity is threatened, such as poverty, migration, violence against women, human trafficking, etc. This led to a detailed examination of the encyclical Fratelli Tutti which explores the theme of human dignity beyond all circumstances.

It is opportune at this point to situate the declaration within the teaching of the Church. It is not a constitution of an ecumenical council such as Gaudium et Spes, nor an encyclical such as Fratelli Tutti nor an apostolic exhortation such as Amoris Laetitia which were both authored by Pope Francis but is a declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the Holy Father has significantly influenced the development of the document and approved it, he did not author it. The document recapitulates existing church teaching but considers also new situations where violations of human dignity occur.

This has resulted in a declaration with four sections, with the first three focused on the biblical and historical understanding of human dignity (§10-16), the Church’s teaching on human dignity (§17-22) and the implications (§23-32), while the final and longest section (§33-62) addresses instances of violations of human dignity. The declaration is thus broadly divided into two parts, the first is a succinct summary of the church’s teaching on human dignity, and the second dealing with the violations. The succinct summary on human dignity, a distillation of much church teaching, is a valuable resource for Catholics who seek to give due honour to human dignity in an increasingly complex world altered by developing technologies and novel social realities. Such changes have transformed the range of possibilities for human behaviour. Medicine is perhaps the most significantly affected discipline where emerging diagnostic and treatment possibilities raise new questions as to when and whether to act. There is a danger that the possible becomes the only or predominant measure of how we respond. The declaration provides medical professionals in particular with some helpful categories and historical background to reflect on human dignity.

The declaration’s introduction (§1) opens with a statement of the Church’s anthropology, which far exceeds the limited anthropologies of our times:

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.

Human dignity is defined as infinite, inalienable, beyond every circumstance. This superlative statement is said to be recognised by reason alone, but the Church’s emphasis is theological. The dignity of the human person is understood in the context of creation and redemption. The human person is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27) and redeemed in Jesus Christ. Human nature is intimately connected to God from the beginning of creation, and this is fully revealed in the incarnation of Jesus Christ who assumes human nature through whom humanity is redeemed to ultimately enjoy eternal life in communion with God. The adjective “infinite” could be understood to be problematic when linked with the all too finite human person, but the theological framework changes the perspective. The love of God for humanity proves to be infinite in the gift of creation and of redemption (John 3:16). The infinite love of God renders human dignity infinite, and humanity is called to reflect this infinite love.

The term ontological dignity is used for dignity, present beyond every circumstance, which belongs to the very being of the person and is inseparable from the person. There are several key adjectives associated with this dignity through the document: prior, intrinsic, inalienable, sublime, inviolable. The dignity is prior, both first in time and importance in relation to the person and inheres within the person and is both intrinsic and inalienable. Through God’s infinite love, human dignity is not only infinite, but unsurpassable and sublime. These qualities render human dignity inviolable, worthy of honour in all circumstances. God’s gift of infinite love for humanity invites humanity’s response to employ that gift to show love to one another. Both the gift of love and the giving of love contribute to human dignity. Reason and revelation attest to the interrelationship between human dignity and fraternity.

The introduction references papal teaching from Paul VI through to Francis, with the encyclical Fratelli Tutti taking prominence as a source for the protection and promotion of human dignity. There follows a fourfold distinction of the concept of dignity: ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity and existential dignity. The first of these mentioned above is the most important and foundational for all others. The ontological dignity of the human person is intrinsic because the person “exists and is willed, created and loved by God” (DI §7) The theological emphasis of creation and redemption resurfaces as the foundation for the ontological dignity of the person. The other categories are secondary to ontological dignity.

There are two novel categories. The first, moral dignity, refers to how people exercise their freedom. While all are loved by God and called to love others, some may choose to act contrary to the call to holiness. Some through their evil behaviour may be understood as having lost their moral compass or moral dignity. They nevertheless retain their inalienable ontological dignity. There is always the possibility for wrongdoers to repent. Recent papal teaching has affirmed that all persons, even murderers, retain their inalienable ontological dignity, and this undergirds the Church’s opposition to the death penalty. The usefulness of this category of dignity in moral reasoning is questioned by some.  However, it may, for example, assist those in the criminal justice system, by a process of compartmentalisation of personal moral attributes, to better discern the inherent ontological dignity and thereby promote the development and maintenance of practices respectful of human dignity for all prisoners.

The second, existential dignity, refers to situations where persons struggle to have peace, joy, and hope, due to perhaps physical or psychological illness. This prevents their recognition of their inherent ontological dignity and that of others. Functioning again by compartmentalising patients’ often challenging existential attributes, this category of dignity allows patients, medical practitioners and others to distinguish the apparent diminishment of dignity from the inherent ontological dignity.

The final form, namely social dignity, refers to situations where people do not live in dignified conditions, due to poverty, violence, etc. This is a judgement on society rather than individuals. While moral, existential, and social dignity may serve as helpful categories, they are always subordinate to ontological dignity and function primarily to allow that fundamental and infinite dignity to appear the more clearly.

The introduction concludes with the classical definition of the person, an individual substance of a rational nature. This sits awkwardly with the position of the declaration that a person’s dignity is not dependent upon rational capabilities, and this clarification is made later (DI §9).

The first section entitled “A growing awareness of the Centrality of Human Dignity” begins with biblical perspectives, with creation (Gen 1:26-27) and God’s care for the less fortunate (Exod 3:7; 22:20-26; Deut 12-26) and the prophetic teaching on the oppression of the poor (Amos 2:6-7; 4:1; 5:11-12). Jesus’ ministry to those on the margins is rightly highlighted (tax collectors [Matt 9:10-11], women [John 4:1-42], children [Mark 10:14-15], lepers [Matt 8:2-3], the sick [Mark 1:29-34], strangers [Matt 25:35], and widows [Luke 7:11-15]) and this becomes the model for his followers (Matt 25; 1 Cor 13). For medical practitioners it undergirds an approach to providing holistic care to all, regardless of income, status, gender, ethnicity, etc. Unfortunately, the declaration contains no reference to the recent publication on biblical anthropology by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.  This valuable resource for biblical anthropology would have supported much of the theological groundings of dignity, namely, creation, incarnation, redemption, and the call to holiness and life in eternity with God, that are presented later.

The development of Christian thought is explored within the context of the shift from the classical view that one’s dignity is defined in relation to one’s place and role in society to the contemporary view of the centrality of individual autonomy and subjectivity. The declaration implicitly confirms the contemporary view, through its repeated approval and affirmation of the UDHR (§2; 14; 23; 56; 63). However, the fullness of dignity observed through response to the call to holiness circumscribes the autonomy and subjectivity. Dignity is both a universal gift but one that invites a response to live in the fullness of that gift for oneself and for others. Two important church documents are referenced, namely the Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) which notes the “sublime dignity of the human person, who stands above all things and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable” (GS §26) and provides a significant body of teaching on human dignity (GS §11-22) and the Declaration on human freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), which states that people “should exercise fully their own judgment and a responsible freedom in their actions” (DH §1). The teaching of Dignitas Infinita draws from these foundational documents.

The second section is entitled “The Church proclaims, promotes, and guarantees human dignity” and is theological in focus. Human dignity is supremely elevated through the imprint of the indelible image of God at creation (§18), and this dignity is further elevated by Christ uniting himself to humanity through the assumption of human nature in the incarnation (§19). This generates an ethical imperative to recognise the presence of Christ in others, particularly those in need (Matt 25). The final theological conviction of this section is that humanity is called to communion with God in eternity with the result that human dignity is not only based on its origin at creation in God’s image, but also on its destiny, fellowship with God in eternity (§20). This theological perspective grounds the Church’s perspective on the infinite dignity of the human person and impels believers to reflect that dignity in their own lives and in their relationships with others.

The next section of the document entitled “Dignity, the Foundation of Human Rights and Duties” presents in more detail the ontological grounding for the unconditional respect for human dignity (§24) and shared human nature as an objective basis for human freedom (§25). The relational structure of the human person is emphasised with freedom at the service of the person and of the person’s fulfilment through the gift of self and openness to others (§26). Human dignity is imbued with possibility for life and communion. Medical practitioners might consider how their exercise of freedom in service of others elevates their dignity and how patients might be enabled to exercise freedom in service of others, despite limitations of illness. The document discusses limits to freedom, in the first instance sin, but also social, economic and political factors, and medical illness, lack of access to medical services, etc. There has been for some time in governments’ health planning a focus on health economics. The liberating effect of interventions for patients and the new possibilities they enable improve national finances but also benefit individuals’ social engagement and thus society as a whole. This declaration might inform broader health policy considerations as well as individual medical professional encounters.

The first three sections provide a rich resource for reflecting on human dignity. The situated or relational aspect of dignity exercised personally and communally is helpful to a more holistic consideration of dignity in various clinical situations. It is not only patients’ dignity that must be respected but also that of medical professionals. The fundamental ontological dignity is not quantified by capabilities, physical, mental, or other, but by the infinite love of God which willed, created, and redeemed humanity. The love of God is relational through the creation in God’s image and likeness and through redemption in Christ’s incarnation. The traditional resources for considering human dignity outlined in the first part of the declaration (§1-32) constitute a valuable resource for Catholic healthcare professionals to understand the rationale for the Church’s elevated anthropology and provide a framework for articulating many medico-ethical issues.

The last and longest part of the document (the fourth section) deals with violations of human dignity (§33-62) and has drawn most attention from the secular press, popular catholic publications and some scholarly articles. This section was added in response to Pope Francis’ request to examine areas where human dignity is violated. The listing of 13 areas includes some new or overlooked situations where human dignity is threatened, such as digital violence, the travails of migrants and human trafficking. While all the situations ultimately involve medical practitioners, a few include procedures such as abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, and sex change operations that are legal or likely to become legal in many jurisdictions and which pose challenges to both the dignity of patients and medical practitioners. The raising of awareness of the threats to human dignity in many common contemporary situations, especially emerging situations with new challenges that require careful reflection, is very welcome.

The approach is necessarily perfunctory given the large volume of situations examined. While it is important to draw attention to the questionable procedures enabled by rapid evolutions in technology, it would be helpful for a later document to engage further with current scholarship in the respective areas to enable Catholic healthcare professionals to better articulate the rationale of the Church’s position. The categories and concepts from the first part of the declaration such as ontological dignity, moral dignity, social dignity and existential dignity might help to elucidate how best to protect human dignity in the various situations. A comprehensive practical analysis of a few situations through the application of the theory of the first part might provide a template for exploration of other situations and development of possible responses.

The attention to the situations is partial at times. In the case of surrogacy, only the child and surrogate are considered. There are other actors here, namely the receiving couple, and more factors at play, namely the unequal social and economic factors, or possibly emotional factors. Since the child is treated as a commodity and the mother as an instrument, the declaration rightly notes that the inherent ontological dignity of both is not respected (§48-50). The social and existential aspects of dignity are limited as the child is robbed of its right to parents who conceive it in the context of a loving and receptive relationship, while the surrogate mother is separated from the child within her and reduced to the status of an incubator. Often she is forced through economic necessity or emotional ties to agree to serve as a surrogate. The receiving parents are divorced from the child throughout the pregnancy. The genetic and contractual ties cannot replace the bonds that are nurtured during pregnancy and prepare for the birth of the child. The dignity of both the child and (genetic) parents is tainted.

The declaration also considers euthanasia and assisted suicide (§51-52) and notes that it is already legal in many jurisdictions and how the use of imprecise language has corrupted the understanding of dignity, through the use of terms such as “death with dignity” and the soft sounding “euthanasia”. This corruption of vocabulary is common across a large spectrum of medico-ethical questions, most notably abortion. The implication of euthanasia is that the life of the person is no longer of value and that they no longer possess the dignity of a human person because of suffering or incapacity. This judgement refers to existential dignity and sometimes social dignity rather than ontological dignity and the approach advocated, the premature ending of a human life infringes moral dignity. Contemporary secular anthropology doesn’t possess such distinctions and instead redefines what constitutes human dignity, namely the possession of a certain level of quality of life enabling social interaction, but this level is not clearly defined. The inalienable ontological dignity of each person is not recognised, and even if recognised, it is perceived to be reduced through suffering and through inability to engage socially. Consideration of the dignity of the person under the categories of ontological, social, existential and moral dignity, assist in clarifying the innate ontological dignity. These categories also help to identify appropriate strategies to alleviate challenges to social dignity by the showing of love through accompaniment, and challenges to existential dignity through holistic palliative care. Moral dignity also points to choosing the appropriate approach and treatment that respects the innate ontological dignity. In complex situations, this requires discernment but healthcare professionals possess the above helpful categories to promote and protect the patient’s dignity.

The document emphasises that each life has the same value and dignity, so that one’s respect for the life of the other should be as the respect for one’s own life. In the theological perspective, the call to holiness continues to exist for each through the vagaries of life to the end and then life in communion with God. The cutting short of a life ruptures prematurely the person’s response to the call to holiness and the person’s welcome of the gift of his or her life to the end.

Despite some critical reflections, this declaration is of great value in putting forth the Church’s teaching on human dignity. Paul VI emphasised the superlative anthropology of the Church with its elevated view of the human person:
no anthropology equals that of the Church regarding the human person—particularly concerning the person’s originality, dignity, the intangibility and richness of the person’s fundamental rights, sacredness, capacity for education, aspiration to a complete development, and immortality.

This teaching has been continued by his successors, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, who consider also the social, political, and economic factors in their consideration of the entirety of the human person. This emphasis on the superlative dignity of the human person beyond all circumstances is especially necessary today.

The declaration’s publication was ordered at an audience by Pope Francis on 25th March 2024 and, though dated 2nd April 2024, was released on the transferred solemnity of the Annunciation, 8th April 2024 in the year of the 75th anniversary of the UDHR. The Annunciation heralds God’s redemptive action in Christ, an expression of God’s infinite love for humanity which is the basis of our infinite dignity and points to our destiny, namely eternal life in communion with God. Humanity’s infinite dignity requires to be welcomed, protected, and promoted in all the human family and especially the most vulnerable.