I am going to give comment here as I read this document, paragraph by paragraph, raising any question or concern in accord with the rights given us by canon 212.
The document’s introduction labors long to explain the five year process of groups in the Vatican forming this document by examining false ideas about human dignity, but then in the very first paragraph after the introduction it claims that human dignity is infinite. How is that not a false idea? In the very first paragraph, after 5 years of rooting out false ideas about human dignity? Only God’s dignity is infinite. How is our dignity also infinite?
It doesn’t explain, except in paragraph 6 to quote Pope Francis saying God confers upon us infinite dignity since His love for us is infinite, which still begs the question how can a quality in us, finite creations, be infinite? Is Pope Francis literally saying human dignity is infinite? Or is he saying it has an infinite-LIKE quality? At face value he seems to be asserting our dignity is literally infinite, which my childhood and adult catechism has taught me would be false. If you square the circle, you might assert he is being metaphorical.
Paragraph 12 says: “For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment.” This sentence would only make sense if it ended “except of course for love of God first and foremost, and also faith in Christ and membership in His Church.” But it didn’t say this. They’re teaching that the judgment that determines our salvation is only how we treat each other. In other words humanistic good works only. How does that not lead a person into the heresy of Pelagianism, that it is only our own efforts and good works that save us, apart from faith, grace, baptism, or following Jesus Christ?
Paragraph 35 says the death penalty is always against human dignity in all circumstances and affirms total rejection of it. On one hand Tradition and Scripture uphold the right of the state to sometimes use it. On the other hand taking human life does violate dignity in that the body is suppose to remain alive and killing it objectively goes against its nature to remain alive, yet the document seems to be morally condemning the death penalty as intrinsically morally evil and therefore absolutely a sin, which would violate the constant teaching up until Pope Francis. Pope Benedict even said that opinions in favor of the death penalty continue to be valid. Yet again if you try to square the circle, I suppose one might say Pope Francis is not officially condemning absolutely the death penalty but making a pastoral teaching it shouldn’t be allowed anymore under any condition, but that one can still hold to the traditional teaching.
Paragraph 39 seems ambiguous. It does read like a pacifist condemnation of all war, while not overtly condemning any form of just war, but it repeats words from Pope Francis saying we cannot base our support for war on religion and God, which he says is a contradiction.
But if a war can be just, then of course it is rooted in God, religious faith, and religious morals, otherwise it isn’t a just war. War is inevitable because there will always be evil nations and tribes threatening relatively innocent nations and tribes, requiring self-defense. Evil men will always start wars, and innocent men will always be required to be ready to engage that war.
The pope mentions the right to self-defense which would implicitly support just war. But he condemns war absolutely as something unnecessary which seems utopian and impossible. He says no war is worth the loss of even one human life. Yet consider all the men on the right side of World War II who gave their lives for world peace and the common good. Surely loss of some life in a just war is worth the peace it gains for the majority. At face value this statement makes no sense, but if we square the circle in charity I suppose he means we must make every effort to stop war.
Paragraph 40 on migrants condemns countries not letting them immigrate into their country since, according to the pope, they have a right to participate in the life and society of that nation . Yet he states this like it is self-evident without any reasoning or support for the statement.
There are natural rights and there are civil rights. Migrants seeking to enter a country have natural rights to be treated with dignity, which means given charity when they are in extreme poverty, but being a migrant does not give the person automatically civil rights to enter that country and participate in its society. To suggest it does would go against the rights of the state to also protect its borders, economy, and way of life.
Perhaps Pope Francis meant that because migrants have human dignity, given their current circumstances, and the relative wealth of countries they are seeking to enter, that nations should be encouraged to welcome them in charity, but he doesn’t make this distinction, but on its face value seems to suggest the country is morally obligated to accept all migrants, including illegal migrants.
In conclusion, there are many questionable statements, that is statements we can question, which is not a surprise, and I don’t expect any clarifications to demonstrate a clearly orthodox reading of those statements. At the same time it is good the document condemns gender theory in particular.
As a lay Catholic it is hard to understand the purpose of this document, except perhaps that it is preaching to the secular sphere at the level of the United Nations. It would seem more of a reference in that context of Church moral teaching relative to contemporary problems than something Catholics would benefit from reading. The questionable statements don’t seem to be something new, but an extension of similar statements made by recent post-Vatican II popes. I personally don’t see this to be controversial on the level that the same-sex blessing document was, and perhaps part of the process of rolling out gradually in waves more controversial changes like female deacons. Lord have mercy on us.
The document’s introduction labors long to explain the five year process of groups in the Vatican forming this document by examining false ideas about human dignity, but then in the very first paragraph after the introduction it claims that human dignity is infinite. How is that not a false idea? In the very first paragraph, after 5 years of rooting out false ideas about human dignity? Only God’s dignity is infinite. How is our dignity also infinite?
It doesn’t explain, except in paragraph 6 to quote Pope Francis saying God confers upon us infinite dignity since His love for us is infinite, which still begs the question how can a quality in us, finite creations, be infinite? Is Pope Francis literally saying human dignity is infinite? Or is he saying it has an infinite-LIKE quality? At face value he seems to be asserting our dignity is literally infinite, which my childhood and adult catechism has taught me would be false. If you square the circle, you might assert he is being metaphorical.
Paragraph 12 says: “For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment.” This sentence would only make sense if it ended “except of course for love of God first and foremost, and also faith in Christ and membership in His Church.” But it didn’t say this. They’re teaching that the judgment that determines our salvation is only how we treat each other. In other words humanistic good works only. How does that not lead a person into the heresy of Pelagianism, that it is only our own efforts and good works that save us, apart from faith, grace, baptism, or following Jesus Christ?
Paragraph 35 says the death penalty is always against human dignity in all circumstances and affirms total rejection of it. On one hand Tradition and Scripture uphold the right of the state to sometimes use it. On the other hand taking human life does violate dignity in that the body is suppose to remain alive and killing it objectively goes against its nature to remain alive, yet the document seems to be morally condemning the death penalty as intrinsically morally evil and therefore absolutely a sin, which would violate the constant teaching up until Pope Francis. Pope Benedict even said that opinions in favor of the death penalty continue to be valid. Yet again if you try to square the circle, I suppose one might say Pope Francis is not officially condemning absolutely the death penalty but making a pastoral teaching it shouldn’t be allowed anymore under any condition, but that one can still hold to the traditional teaching.
Paragraph 39 seems ambiguous. It does read like a pacifist condemnation of all war, while not overtly condemning any form of just war, but it repeats words from Pope Francis saying we cannot base our support for war on religion and God, which he says is a contradiction.
But if a war can be just, then of course it is rooted in God, religious faith, and religious morals, otherwise it isn’t a just war. War is inevitable because there will always be evil nations and tribes threatening relatively innocent nations and tribes, requiring self-defense. Evil men will always start wars, and innocent men will always be required to be ready to engage that war.
The pope mentions the right to self-defense which would implicitly support just war. But he condemns war absolutely as something unnecessary which seems utopian and impossible. He says no war is worth the loss of even one human life. Yet consider all the men on the right side of World War II who gave their lives for world peace and the common good. Surely loss of some life in a just war is worth the peace it gains for the majority. At face value this statement makes no sense, but if we square the circle in charity I suppose he means we must make every effort to stop war.
Paragraph 40 on migrants condemns countries not letting them immigrate into their country since, according to the pope, they have a right to participate in the life and society of that nation . Yet he states this like it is self-evident without any reasoning or support for the statement.
There are natural rights and there are civil rights. Migrants seeking to enter a country have natural rights to be treated with dignity, which means given charity when they are in extreme poverty, but being a migrant does not give the person automatically civil rights to enter that country and participate in its society. To suggest it does would go against the rights of the state to also protect its borders, economy, and way of life.
Perhaps Pope Francis meant that because migrants have human dignity, given their current circumstances, and the relative wealth of countries they are seeking to enter, that nations should be encouraged to welcome them in charity, but he doesn’t make this distinction, but on its face value seems to suggest the country is morally obligated to accept all migrants, including illegal migrants.
In conclusion, there are many questionable statements, that is statements we can question, which is not a surprise, and I don’t expect any clarifications to demonstrate a clearly orthodox reading of those statements. At the same time it is good the document condemns gender theory in particular.
As a lay Catholic it is hard to understand the purpose of this document, except perhaps that it is preaching to the secular sphere at the level of the United Nations. It would seem more of a reference in that context of Church moral teaching relative to contemporary problems than something Catholics would benefit from reading. The questionable statements don’t seem to be something new, but an extension of similar statements made by recent post-Vatican II popes. I personally don’t see this to be controversial on the level that the same-sex blessing document was, and perhaps part of the process of rolling out gradually in waves more controversial changes like female deacons. Lord have mercy on us.