The concept of human dignity has undergone many changes throughout history. The
importance of such changes can best be appreciated with a review from different lenses. From
the religious context for instance, primarily from the Christian perspective, “human dignity” is
derived from the concept of God distinguishing man from the rest of creation.
Lebech gave a summary of accounts on “human dignity”: (1) Cosmocentric, dealing with
the value of man in relation to other creations.; (2) Theocentric, dealing with the value of man
created in the image of God; (3) Logocentric, dealing with the value of man as a result of
reason; and (4) Polis-centric with human dignity in relation to social acceptability.1
Many of the Church documents and encyclicals on human dignity have been based on
the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and primarily on the Natural Law. It is significant to note
that Aquinas’ views were influenced and/or contain elements of previous philosophers’
thoughts like Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine.
To understand the value or dignity of the human person, it is important to define what
the human person is. In the metaphorical sense, this can be called an ‘essence’ or the inherent
determining factor that makes a thing what it is. 2 In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas wrote that a
“person refers to that which is most perfect in the whole of nature, namely, to that which
subsists in rational nature.”3
The word “person” came to refer to men of high rank. In the ecclesiastical world there
grew the custom of referring to personages of rank. For this reason some theologians define
person as “an hypostasis distinguished by dignity”.4
The word dignity comes from the Latin word dignitas (“worth”).5 During the reign of the
Roman Empire, it was used to refer to persons distinguished from the rest of the population in
a hierarchical order. Dignity then was an attribute of social recognition specifically implying
social and political prominence. 6
Donnelley also traced the concept of human dignity from the time of Marcus Tullius
Cicero, who was a prominent Roman philosopher and politician. Cicero wrote on natural law,
and was echoed in early Christian writings. In his works, dignity requires a “virtuous life in
accord with nature and reason”.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lebech, Mette (2009). On the Problem of Human Dignity as retrieved from
http://core.kmi.open.ac.uk/download/pdf/11525082.pdf
Aguas, Jove Jim. (2009). The Notions of the Human Person and Human Dignity in Aquinas and Wojtyla. KRITIKE, 3:1,
p.40-60. Retrieved from www.kritike.org/journal/issue_5/aguas_june2009.pdf
Clark, Mary T. “Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, K.Wojtyla on Person and Ego” as retrieved from
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/PPer/PPerClar.htm
Clark, Mary T. (Ed, 2000). An Aquinas Reader. New York: Fordham University Press, p. 177 as read from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=ewatnJktQHYC&pg=PA177&dq=an+hypostasis+distinguished+by+dignity+by
+clark&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o5x3VJ3zIee4mAWl_oL4CA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=an%20hypostasis%20distin
guished%20by%20dignity%20by%20clark&f=false
English Encyclopedia accessed at http://www.encyclo.co.uk
Francese, Christopher (2007). Ancient Rome in so Many Words. New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc., p. 127 as accessed
from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gl5T47CvuDsC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dignitas+in+roman+empire&sour
ce=bl&ots=GSVKshRyAT&sig=Uvc_c_Q9NrsYC0mi2bX97UhV9MQ&hl=ceb&sa=X&ei=XKl3VLu3JuK5mAWVtYH4Bg&
ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dignitas%20in%20roman%20empire&f=false
Donnely, Jack. (2013). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornell University Press, p. 123 as
accessed from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=3gVCY1P7e4MC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=%22virtuous+life+in+accord+wit
h+nature+and+reason%22+cicero&source=bl&ots=rWZJc8GRaI&sig=tOCDDrOle0gH04aTO340bGjPYQw&hl=ceb&sa
1
In line with the Greek philosophy of Stoicism, dignity is to be achieved and preserved by
freeing oneself from destructive emotions.
But it is essential to every inquiry about duty that we keep before our eyes how far superior man is
by nature to cattle and other beasts: they have no thought except for sensual pleasure and this they
are impelled by every instinct to seek; but man's mind is nurtured by study and meditation; he is
always either investigating or doing, and he is captivated by the pleasure of seeing and hearing. … if,
I say, he is a little too susceptible to the attractions of pleasure, he hides the fact, however much he
may be caught in its toils, and for very shame conceals his appetite. From this we see that sensual
pleasure is quite unworthy of the dignity of man and that we ought to despise it and cast it from us;
but if someone should be found who sets some value upon sensual gratification, he must keep
strictly within the limits of moderate indulgence. One's physical comforts and wants, therefore,
should be ordered according to the demands of health and strength, not according to the calls of
pleasure (Cicero, 1913 [44 BC].
In this passage, Cicero distinguishes man as having dignity above an animal. Yet to
achieve such dignity, Man must not submit to sensual pleasures or instincts which are
characteristics of an animal.
Human in the Image of God
Cicero’s description of what separates man from animals is also reflected in the doctrinal
teaching of Man as being created in the image and likeness of God or Imago Dei. This concept
primarily takes its inspiration from the bible passage in Genesis.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness..” (Gen. 1:26).
This scriptural affirmation of Man as an image of God has brought to the fore a plethora
of discussions and interpretations about what constitutes an Imago Dei. Augustine’s belief
about the Holy Trinity guided his search for the image of God (Imago Dei) in the rational human
mind which he believed as the essence of the human person. He distinguished the mind, or
“inner man,” from the rest of human nature and the physical bodily sensations which he
attributes as the “outer man.” He likened physical sensations or sense organs to something
shared with animals and which thus cannot be reconciled with the essence of the human
person as an image of God. To pursue Imago Dei, one must turn away from the life of sensation
and turn inward toward the life of the mind to find unity of being sufficient to form the basis of
the imago. Memory, intellect and will, being acts of the mind distinct from those shared with
animals, constitute the genuine Imago Dei which Augustine asserted as the essence of the
soul.8
Christian tradition has put emphasis on “Man”, created in the image of God, and given
rule over the rest of creation and thus having a certain importance—dignity. St. Thomas
Aquinas argued that to sin is to deviate from what is according to natural law or human
nature, thereby implying losing one’s dignity. Aquinas further articulated this thought in his
Summa Theologica:
=X&ei=Nq13VInqC8b4mAXUj4KgDg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22virtuous%20life%20in%20accord%20w
ith%20nature%20and%20reason%22%20cicero&f=false
8
O’Callaghan, John P. (2007). Imago Dei: A Test Case for St. Thomas’s Augustinianism. In Dauphinais, Michael, Barry
David, and Matthew Levering (Eds.). Aquinas the Augustinian (pp.100-144). The Catholic University of America Press
as accessed from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=rKGz2R0GiIIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
2
Since man is said to be made in God's image, in so far as the image implies "an intelligent being
endowed with free-will and self-movement": now that we have treated of the exemplar, i.e. God, and
of those things which came forth from the power of God in accordance with His will; it remains for us
to treat of His image, i.e. man, inasmuch as he too is the principle of his actions, as having free-will
and control of his actions.9
Man’s spirituality sets him apart from other creatures. Then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla,
who would later become Pope John Paul II in 1978, wrote:
A person differs from a thing in structure and in the degree of perfection. To the structure of the
person belongs an “inner” in which we find the elements of spiritual life and it is this that
compels us to acknowledge the spiritual nature of the human soul and the peculiar perfectibility of
the human person.10
Human Rights
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: “All human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”11 Much of the concepts of human dignity
in relation to the modern UDHR can largely be attributed to Immanuel Kant who “laid the
philosophical foundations for our understanding of human dignity”. Kant placed human
dignity at the center of moral and political theory which also posits that human dignity is an
“absolute inner worth” which is the standard of value by which one exacts respect for himself
from others.12
In his Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argued that our moral law and freedom accords any
person with inalienable dignity and keeps us from being exploited or used by others. For him,
“humanity in his person is the object of respect which he can demand from every other human
being, but which he must also not forfeit.13
Following this argument, Kant emphasized that the concept of right “is the limitation of
each person's freedom so that it is compatible with the freedom of everyone, insofar as this is
possible in accord with a universal law; and public right is the totality of external laws which
makes such a thoroughgoing compatibility possible.”14
.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Retrieved from
http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-Summa%20Theologica.pdf
10 Mejos, Dean Edward A. (2007). Against Alienation: Karol Wojtyla’s Theory of Participation . Retrieved from
http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_1/mejos_june2007.pdf
11 Text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be accessed from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1
12 Donnelley, op. cit.
13 Kant, Immanuel. (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals. (Translated and Edited by Mary Gregor). New York: Cambridge
University Press. as accessed from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=GcEmAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
14 Kant, Immanuel.(1983). Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Moral Practice. (Translated by Ted
Humphrey). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., p. 72. As accessed from
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=e8AarOLTngEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
9
3
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR)
Sexuality and contraception have long been controversial topics within the Catholic
Church—spanning centuries in discourse and justifying traditional beliefs with interpretations
of ancient scriptures. More than mere stubbornness, the Church’s position is rooted deeper in
history itself. Though the Church has been opposed to contraception and adheres to traditional
gender roles and sexual expression, many argue that such a position does not address the
changing realities of modern day society nor reflect the majority sentiment of Church believers.
To understand why the institution clings to tradition despite the clamor for change—
primarily on views towards gender and sexuality and recognizing their importance in the
overall human rights framework—the reader is presented the following concepts of the Church
on sexuality, sexual expression and the role of women.
What is sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR)? Sexual and Reproductive
Health entails “healthy, voluntary, and safe sexual and reproductive choices—voluntary
choices of individuals and couples about family size and family formation, including early
marriage and other exposures to sexual risks.” Reproductive health issues, thus, deal with
vital (and frequently sensitive) concerns, including sexuality, gender roles, male and female
power relations and social personal identity. 15
The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) of 1994 recognized
the concept of sexual and reproductive health. It adopted an approach that is grounded on
human rights rather than on population control. ICPD affirmed the people’s rights on
parenthood, pregnancy, sexuality, and relationships. The Program of Action (PoA) that called
for the “Universal Access to SRH by 2015” was a landmark document that shaped the context
of how SRHR is viewed. Philippines was one of the 179 countries that signed the ICPD PoA. The
country’s commitment was renewed during the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women
which yielded the Beijing Platform for Action (PFA). The PFA states that
Reproductive rights rests on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide
freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information
and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.
It also includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion,
and violence.16
Though commitment to the achievement of universal access to SRHR has been
reaffirmed time and again through various global meetings, pushing through with the agenda
faces a plethora of challenges. Opposition to the concept comes mostly from adherents to
conservative norms on sexuality. Sometimes arguing that SRHR is a foreign-imposed concept
and, therefore, opposed to tradition and culture that must be preserved. Sexuality has turned
into a key battleground in the conflict.
Scott analyzed that the ‘culture talk” is increasingly being used to counter the “rights
talk” in the debate for SRHR, particularly among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) people.
15
16
Millennium Development Project, 2005 retrieved from
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/UNMP_QA_SRH.pdf
See Beijing Platform for Action as accessed from
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/health.htm and also from
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/BDPfA%20E.pdf
4
The target is chosen with passion, but also precision and care. Movements for the rights of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, along with movements that assert sexual rights more
generally, are arguably the most vulnerable edge of the human rights movement. In country after
country they are easy to defame and discredit. But the attack on them also opens space for attacking
human rights principles themselves—as not universal but “foreign,” as not protectors of diversity but
threats to sovereignty, and as carriers of cultural perversion.
In many countries, forces opposed to universal rights standards have found their strongest
stance is to declare themselves defenders of “authentic” (though often invented) cultural tradition.
“Culture talk” increasingly opposes itself to “rights talk.” Rights are treated as invaders. Sexuality
has turned into a key battleground in the conflict. The “cultural” argument against sexual rights
sees itself as striking the exposed flank of rights protections. The onslaught also has devastating
effects on public health—as essential measures to prevent HIV/AIDS are scrapped in the name of
“morals,” and as vulnerable people are driven into the shadows.17
Vatican & SRHR
Strong reservations against gender rights and SRHR also come from the Vatican and
Pro-Life groups. In the address given by Archbishop Chullikatt, Holy See’s permanent observer
to the United Nations at the 55th session of the Commission on the Status of Women of the
United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in March 2011, the Vatican concerns
were raised. The Holy See questioned the “redefinition” of gender in reference to the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). For the Vatican and Pro-Life groups, gender is limited to
male and female only.
The attempt to re-define gender is also linked to the missing reference to the UDHR, in
the present text. The UDHR, the foundational document of the human rights system,
acknowledges the inherent dignity and worth of every human person, male and female.
Yet some of those promoting a re-definition of gender opposed references to the UDHR in
the face of overwhelming support for its inclusion, and equally opposed reference to “the
inherent dignity and worth of women and men,” a bedrock principle of the human rights
system. In light of these trends, the international community should be aware that this
agenda to re-define “gender” in turn, calls into question the very foundation of the human
rights system. 18
It should be recalled that in 1964, the Vatican, a non-member state, joined the United
Nations as a permanent observer in the General Assembly. As a permanent observer, the
Vatican or the Holy See enjoys the rights and privileges of participation in the sessions and
work of the General Assembly and the international conferences convened under the auspices
of the Assembly or other organs of the United Nations, as well as in United Nations
conferences.19
No other religious organization has the kind of power and privilege the Vatican has at
the UN level. Its UN status further strengthened its position as a global leader. With more than
17
18
19
Long, Scott. (2005). Anatomy of a Backlash: Sexuality and the "Cultural" War on Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k5/anatomy/anatomy.pdf
Address given on March 18, 2011, by Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, permanent observer of the Holy See to the
United Nations, at the 55th session of UNESCO's Commission on the Status of Women. Accessed from
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/holy-see-on-redefining-gender and also from
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2011/jun2011p6_3533.html
United Nations. (2003). Participation of the Holy See in the work of the United Nations. Available online at
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/58/314&Lang=E. (See also U.N. General Assembly
Resolution A/58/314 Participation of the Holy See in the work of the United Nations accessed at
http://www.holyseemission.org/about/participation-of-the-holy-see-in-the-un.aspx)
5
1.2 million members globally, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the oldest and largest
religious institutions in existence. It has played an important role in shaping Western
civilizations and, to date, remains one of the most influential organizations in the world—
influencing both culture and politics.
Through the decades, the Vatican and other religious participants of international
gatherings have consistently opposed the term “gender”. They did this at global meetings like
the 1994 ICPD in Cairo, the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, and in the
aforementioned 2011 UNESCO Commission on Women meeting.
Dale O’Learey, author of The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, is wary in using the
gender perspective. Instead, she calls it a manipulative ploy of radical feminists or the Sexual
Left. She believes that the use of “gender” for “sex” is a deceptive technique to push for antifamily agenda. Her book was written from the Catholic perspective. She talked about the
United Nations’ effort to change traditions on marriage, family, and motherhood.20 Her
suspicions of the UN is summed up as follows,
“I observed that the UN is inhabited by people who believe what the world needs is (1)
fewer people; (2) more sexual pleasure; (3) the elimination of the differences between men
and women; (4) no full-time mothers. These people recognise that increasing sexual
pleasure could increase the number of babies and mothers. Therefore, their prescription
for world salvation is (1) free contraception and legal abortion; (2) promotion
of homosexuality (sex without babies); (3) sex education courses to encourage sexual
experimentation among children, and to teach them how to get contraception and
abortions, that homosexuality is normal, and that men and women are the same; (5) fiftyfifty, male-female quotas; (6) all women in the workforce; (7) discrediting all religions that
oppose this agenda.”21
The Vatican rejects gender theory or the idea that masculinity and femininity are
socially constructed. It views such a theory as shaking the very foundation of the Natural Law
and the true nature of humans being as man and woman. The gender agenda is seen as
contrary to the will of the Creator and will only lead people to the path to self-destruction.22
Views on sex, gender and sexuality are not only grounded on the philosophy of
biological determinism but are also justified by the interpretations of scriptures. Relating again
to man’s nature as an image of God, Aquinas posits that
In a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the
beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when
the Apostle had said that "man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of
man," he adds his reason for saying this: "For man is not of woman, but woman of man;
and man was not created for woman, but woman for man" (Summa Theologica, Question
93 Article 4).23
20
21
22
23
O’Leary, Dale. (1997). The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. Lafayette, Louisiana: Vital Issues Press.
Book review as accessed from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Gender+Agenda%3A+Redefining+equality.a076472011
Case, Mary Anne. (2011). After Gender the Destruction of Man: The Vatican’s Nightmare Vision of the Gender
Agenda for Law. 31 Pace Law Review 802. Available online at http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol31/iss3/2 and
also at http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol31/iss3/2
Aquinas, op. cit.
6
The Gender Agenda is seen as a threat based on the perspective that it will destroy the very
foundation of human identity or essence. Pope Benedict XVI explains in his 2008 address to
the members of the Roman Curia for the traditional exchange of Christmas greetings.
(The Church) has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility.
In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She
must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology,
correctly understood.
If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this
order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is
faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be
the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.
What is often expressed and understood by the term “gender” ultimately ends up being man’s
attempt at self-emancipation from creation and the Creator. Man wants to be his own master, and
alone – always and exclusively – to determine everything that concerns him. Yet in this way he lives
in opposition to the truth, in opposition to the Creator Spirit.
Rain forests deserve indeed to be protected, but no less so does man, as a creature having an innate
“message” which does not contradict our freedom, but is instead its very premise.24
Pope Benedict provided a clear picture explaining the core of Vatican’s opposition to the
gender agenda. He posits the self-destruction of mankind as the destruction of
Vatican’s view of “the nature of human beings as man and woman.” In a 1985 exclusive
interview before he became pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger cautioned everyone about
trivializing sex.
But it is further necessary to get to the bottom of the demand that radical feminism draws from the
widespread modern culture, namely, the "trivialization" of sexual specificity that makes every role
interchangeable between man and woman. When we were speaking of the crisis of traditional
morality, I indicated a series of fatal ruptures: that, for example, between sexuality and procreation.
Detached from the bond with fecundity, sex no longer appears to be a determined characteristic, as
a radical and pristine orientation of the person. Male? Female? They are questions that for some are
now viewed as obsolete, senseless, if not racist. The answer of current conformism is foreseeable:
"whether one is male or female has little interest for us, we are all simply humans." This, in reality,
has grave consequences even if at first it appears very beautiful and generous. It signifies, in fact,
that sexuality is no longer rooted in anthropology; it means that sex is viewed as a simple role,
interchangeable at one's pleasure.25
24
25
Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the Roman Curia for the Traditional Exchange of Christmas
Greetings. (Clementine Hall, 22 December 2008). Available at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/december/documents/hf_benxvi_spe_20081222_curia-romana_en.html
Ratzinger, Joseph with Vittorio Messori. (1985). The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the
Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 95. Available at
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=bSZtm0DWz_cC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
7