Queering Dignity: A Response to “Dignitas Infinita”
On April 4, 2024, the Press Office of the Holy See in Rome released a declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith — the branch of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) dedicated to the promotion and enforcement of official Catholic dogma [1] — entitled Dignitas Infinita, or “Infinite Dignity” [2]. This declaration, written and edited over a five-year timespan, is a work of theological anthropology dedicated to “highlighting the indispensable nature of the dignity of the human person in Christian anthropology and illustrating the significance and beneficial implications of the concept in the social, political, and economic realms—while also taking into account the latest developments on the subject in academia and the ambivalent ways in which the concept is understood today” [3].
This document, which only runs about twenty pages, is broken into four main sections: 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, and 4) Some Grave Violations of Human Dignity. The first three sections are relatively straightforward, theologically-speaking, and are in line with a long-tradition of Catholic social thought. Much of it, I think, would be considered widely agreeable for Christians across traditions and denominations. For example: “…all beings possess their own ‘dignity’ according to their place within the harmony of the whole” [4], “Every individual possesses an inalienable and intrinsic dignity from the beginning of his or her existence as an irrevocable gift” [5], and “…it is crucial to understand that removing injustices promotes human freedom and dignity at every level of human endeavor” [6].
Issues begin to emerge, though, in section four as the document seeks to address “grave violations of human dignity.” To be sure, though, not all of section four is problematic. Much of it concerns the church’s official stances on poverty, war, violence against women, and human trafficking, among others. In many ways, Catholic social thought on these issues is far better and more complex than it is given credit for. And, of course, there are subsections concerning euthanasia, abortion and more—aspects of Catholic teaching that many don’t agree with, but have come to expect. However, the few sections that concern us here are those regarding sexuality and gender.
Couched in a subsection on “gender theory,” the document quotes Pope Francis as saying that gender theory is “extremely dangerous” and a project of “ideological colonization” [7]. While it’s not necessarily surprising that this document reaffirms the RCC’s stances on identities and orientations outside the cis-hetero binary, referring to their existence in violent terms certainly feels like a new escalation. All of it is wrapped up, though, in metaphysical claims attempting to establish a preconceived design of humanity, sexuality, and human relations. Claims are made such as, “human life in all its dimensions, both physical and spiritual, is a gift from God” [8], the “ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman” [9], and “we cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation” [10].
While some of these claims might not necessarily appear problematic in their written forms, we can’t look past their metaphysical properties—the ways in which they are normative in their dimensions, claiming predetermined designs in which all creation must fit. They affirm only a male-female binary and leave no room for those who feel as if they fall outside it; they affirm both the masculine and feminine qualities of God’s creative work without acknowledging the spectrum that exists between those extremes; and assumes that the “dimensions” of human life that are gifts from God are not subject to growth, change, or process. In short, these brief claims scattered throughout Dignitas Infinita are ways of implicitly reaffirming a model of humanity already defined for every person even before that person emerges into the world.
Pope Francis is quoted saying as much in the subsection regarding “sex change” (a clear and obvious shunning of widely-accepted language of “gender affirming”): “creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created” [11]. The question must be asked, though, of the exact nature of God’s creation. Genesis tells us that God created the heavens and the earth; did God not create all the space in between? We’re told God created the waters and the land; what about the areas of creation that blur that line? God created light and darkness, day and night; what about dawn? Or dusk?
One thing this document, and much of official RCC teaching, overlooks is the possibility that God did not create exact, unambiguous categories to which all must conform, but instead set boundaries inside of which all are included. And this might be said of both biological sex and the sociological construct of gender. Again, Francis has said that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated” [12]. In other words, people with biologically female genitalia are automatically locked into a specific set of socio-cultural expectations, norms, and positions which must be adhered to. Not only does this immediately create issues when one considers how the roles of women differ culturally, geographically, and chronologically (one might think of the various matriarchal societies that have existed over the course of history in which women are default social and political leaders), not to mention the fact that Francis doesn’t explain ehat exactly the contours of that socio-cultural role entail, but we also cannot ignore the long history of oppression that women have been subject to. The dictates in this document seem to suggest that this oppression is in the natural order of gender and sexuality in the world. While Dignitas Infinita holds three paragraphs dedicated to eliminating violence against women [13], they are quietly disregarded in the assignment of dignity to women only in certain places and positions which have traditionally been subservient and powerless.
The RCC cannot be committed to both “human dignity transcend[ing] all outward appearances and specific aspects of people’s lives” [14] while also committing to the idea that “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received” [15]. There’s a logical incoherence present in this line of thought that results from maintaining dignity as a theological concept instead of a concrete, lived practice which must be afforded to each and every person.
For many, it may be tempting to merely abandon the principal of “dignity” altogether since it’s become so bogged down with theological baggage and opt for another linguistic expression. However, I’m not sure that’s necessary. I don’t think dignity needs to be cast aside as much as it needs to merely be queered; it needs to be skewed, brought low, understood anew. As a familiar idea, it needs to be made mysterious; as a narrow idea, it must be broadened; as an ethereal idea, it must be made real. It needs to be problematized and unseated. What good is some pure, uncontaminated idea of “infinite dignity” when the lived, reality of it has been poisoned?
Like anything, Catholicism can be both beautiful and broken at the same time. It’s given the world beautiful theology, beautiful liturgy, and beautiful saints—all of which the church is better for having encountered. But that doesn’t mean it’s above critique. There are plenty of areas in which the Catholic church is in desperate need of correction, and those of us who find ourselves compelled by a wider, broader, and deeper concept of justice have a responsibility to offer it, lovingly and with care, whenever possible.
[1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_en.html
[2] https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/04/08/240408c.html
[3] Ibid., presentation.
[4] Ibid., §10.
[5] Ibid., §22.
[6] Ibid. §31.
[7] Ibid., §56.
[8] Ibid., §57.
[9] Ibid., §59.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., §60.
[12] Ibid., §59.
[13] Ibid., §§44-46.
[14] Ibid., presentation.
[15] Ibid., §60.
