The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol...
https://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/10/the_catastrophic_spider.htmlHi Lydia,
I have no problem at all with the the phrase or concept "human dignity" as such, and I am happy to speak also of intrinsic or non-utilitarian value. Nor do I think one needs to use the A-T language in non-philosophical contexts.
But I don't like the "ends in themselves" talk, for the reasons stated in the main post. And unfortunately, that's the kind of meaning that often gets attached to the idea of human dignity these days.
In other words, in a context in which people reflexively thought of human beings in terms of their status as rational animals (where rationality is understood to be irreducible to some material attribute), their high "just below the angels" place in the natural order, as made in God's image, etc., the term "human dignity" would be completely unproblematic. But in a context in which it is taken for granted that God and nature (in the classical sense of "nature") are irrelevant to ethics, that consent, freedom, etc. are the fundamental moral categories, etc., talk of "human dignity" has a tendency to be read in an idolatrous "Man is an end in himself" way.
That doesn't mean the expression shouldn't be used. I think it should be. It's just that one shouldn't assume that it constitutes any genuine moral common ground between traditionalists/Christians on the one hand and their liberal/secular opponents on the other. And thus it needs to be qualified and explained in terms of deeper moral premises.