Imagine that you get lost in the wilderness and stumble across a long-term resident—someone whose tattered clothes and fluid movements show they’ve survived here for years. Their expertise in identifying plants and tracking animals is evident as they offer to guide you to safety. But as they share their knowledge, you notice troubling inconsistencies. Sometimes their advice proves helpful—showing you how to find clean water and shelter. Other times, it’s actively dangerous—insisting certain poisonous berries are edible or that stagnant bacteria-filled pools are safe to drink from. You quickly realize you can’t trust everything they say. Learning what this person knows is helpful for basic survival knowledge, but so is the discernment to reject their errors.
As evangelicals, we often find ourselves in a similar position when it comes to Roman Catholic theology. Rome’s history of theological and philosophical reflection provides some helpful resources for a holistic Christian worldview, but her errors are deadly. In particular, at the Second Vatican Council (commonly called Vatican II, which took place from 1962–1965), Rome developed rich resources on the breadth and depth of human dignity as the image of God. However, in doing so, Vatican II moved the Catholic church toward universalism—a lethal heresy—and it also continued a trend of over-inflating the church’s role in this doctrinal arena. In this essay, I will give an evangelical summary and brief evaluation of the dignity of the human person from Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (henceforth, GS), as its concise density well epitomizes the main thrust of the Roman Catholic theology of personhood.[1]
1. Gaudium et Spes is the incipit (opening words) of Chapter 1 of the “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.’ The concern for human dignity also frames both the “Declaration on Religious Freedom”(Dignitatis Humanae) and entitles the section of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church on “Man’s Vocation. Life in the Spirit.”
I. The Prism of Dignity
In sketching the meaning and value of person, GS repeatedly underlines a person’s ‘dignity’ in that it represents the backbone of its message.
As far as the source of dignity is concerned, the Council boldly asserts that it is supremely rooted in man’s “call to communion with God” (19).[2] In the face of the atheistic argument that belief in God demeans the value of man and thus his intrinsic dignity, GS affirms the exact opposite: “the recognition of God is in no way hostile to man’s dignity, since this dignity is rooted and perfected in God” (21).
2. The numbers in parentheses here and throughout this document correlate to the paragraph numbers in Gaudium et Spes (1965).
As for its ontological value, human dignity is an inherent worth which can never be disposed of since it is intrinsically related to the human person. Though man can err in a variety of ways, his conscience never loses its dignity (16). Even more than that, in spite of all his tragic problems and evident short-comings, man never falls short of the “dignity of being a person” (28). Dignity is an inalienable anthropological trait because it is intertwined with man’s identity as man. In GS’s words, “man is more precious for what he is than for what he has” (35) and therefore his rights and duties are “universal and inviolable” (26).
This high view of personhood impinges on the whole of the human person and his life. In this respect, every aspect of man is endowed with dignity: his “mind” (15), his “moral conscience” (16, 41), his “vocation” (22), his “spiritual” dimension (23), his whole being and calling (39). Not only is the whole person marked by inherent dignity, but every person enjoys the same “equal dignity.” though the Council immediately recognizes that “rightful differences exist between men” (29). The equality of man is argued for in terms of the fundamental dignity of each and every person and this is one of its “irresistible requirements” (26).
His dignity also determines the position which is attributed to man in the world. In this respect, GS says that man “stands above all things” (26) since he is the “center and crown” (12) of all things. The supremacy and centrality of man leads the Council to stress the fact that the world is “the theater of man’s history” (2) and to express forcefully its “reverence for man” (27).
Finally, GS repeatedly speaks of the socio-political implications derived from the strong affirmation of man’s dignity. At this point, the teaching of the Council reaches the meeting point between theological reflection on man and pastoral exhortation to all men in authority. Human dignity is so high a value that the political, social and economic order should “minister to” (29), “affirm and develop” (9), always having in view the benefit of the human person (26). In the light of this principle, earthly affairs should be “subordinate to the personal realm and not contrariwise” (26), thus recognizing the pre-eminence of man in policy-making over any other concern. Every man should become ‘conscious’ of his dignity (31) by having “living conditions” which would make it possible for everyone to appreciate it (31).
II. The Mystery of the Person
According to GS, man is properly a mysterium that the Roman Church wants to illuminate in the light of Christ (10). Later, the key to the right approach is specified when it is said that “only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light” (22). The Church can shed light on the mystery of man inasmuch as she does it Christologically or, to put it differently, by relating it to another mystery (that of Jesus Christ). While rooting its anthropological discourse on the imago dei motif (12), GS advocates a Christological anthropology.
In a typological sense, Adam the first man is seen as a figure of Jesus Christ “the last Adam” (22), thus pointing eschatologically to the new man. The intrinsic relationship between the two Adams enables GS to assert that the innermost qualities of the first Adam “find their root and attain their crown” in the last Adam (22).
In an incarnational sense, Jesus’s assumption of human nature elevates man to “divine dignity” (22), thus providing a divine pattern to which man must conform himself. One of the most best-known statements of the entire Council reads that “by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man” (22). Whatever this somewhat ambiguous phrase means, it certainly refers to the objective fact that the incarnation effects all of humanity.
In a soteriological sense, since “Christ died for all men” (22), his redemptive work makes it possible for man to be linked with “the Paschal mystery” (22), in other words to participate in his sacrifice and to share its salvific benefits. Not only Christians are the recipients of this association but “all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way” (22). Here, the Council clearly expresses a tendency toward universalism. They argue that because of the supreme value of every man that it must be every man (not just the redeemed) for whom Christ died.
Finally, in an eschatological sense, as Christ is “the Alpha and the Omega” (45), he is “the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart, and the answer to all its yearnings” (45; cf. also 10). The destiny of mankind is united to that of Christ.
III. The Vocation of the Person
Dignity and mystery do not exhaust the theology of personhood of Vatican II. In fact, the GS vocabulary on personhood is also enriched by a large number of references to man’s ‘vocation’ which indicates its horizontal and relational dimension.
Vocation is primarily understood as expressing the communitarian character (32) of person, the fact that man is never to be considered as if he were simply an individual. On the contrary, he is always and intrinsically a being with a “social nature” (25), a person-in-relation with other persons who is what he is because of his being in relation. Man is seen as an essentially “social being” (12) who inherently experiences “human interdependence” (26) with his fellow men. Stemming from this vocational aspect of personhood, GS argues for “the basic equality of all” (29), the relationship between sexes as “a primary form of interpersonal communion” (12), its teaching on marriage and family (47–52) and its appeal for “universal brotherhood” and “brotherly solidarity” between men (38; cf. also 2).
Man’s vocation is also related to the unity of mankind. Since being a person means to be part of a community as large as the whole of humanity. It is God’s design and purpose that men form a “single world community” (33); in fact, according to GS, “God, who has a fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (24).[3] The unity of mankind is also at the center of the mystery of salvation. God’s salvific purposes are universal and embrace the whole of mankind. The unity of mankind is envisaged in creation, fulfilled in the eschaton and (in hope) achieved in salvation.
3. This is a theme particularly stressed by Pope Francis in his 2020 encyclical “All Brothers.” See my article in response, “All Brothers: The Unbearable Cost of Roman Catholic Universalism” (1 Nov 2020).
IV. The Roman Church and Dignity
The whole discourse on personhood in GS revolves around these three poles: 1) the inalienable dignitas (dignity) of the person indicates her supreme value; 2) the profound mysterium (mystery) touches on the Christological ontology of the person; 3) the communitarian vocatio (vocation) reflects her existential, social and ecclesial calling.
Significantly enough, GS opens with the first paragraph paradigmatically entitled “The Intimate Bond between the Church and Mankind” (1) and continues by reflecting on “The Church and Man’s Calling” (11) and “The Role of the Church in the Modern World” (40-45) as they are “mutually related.” While the other ecclesiological pillar of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (Light of the Nations), strongly upholds the sacramental nature of the Church regarding Christ and the unity of mankind (e.g., 1), GS deepens the sacramental profile of the Church (40). In both relations, however, she stands in the middle, being a “sign and instrument” of both and serving both. The Church is the sacrament of the incarnate Word thus representing his authority, work and office. The Church is also the sacrament through which the new humanity is enacted until the final accomplishment of its universal destiny. In a telling statement, GS states that “the Church is the universal sacrament of salvation, simultaneously manifesting and exercising the mystery of God’s love for man” (45). She stands between God and man. In Roman Catholic theology, where Christ is mentioned, the Church is in some way always implied. As was noted earlier, Catholic universalism is Christologically framed but, as the relationship between Christ and the (Roman) Church is of a quasi-perichoretical (i.e., mutually indwelling) type, its universalism is also ecclesiastically embedded.
The “function,” “light,” and “energy” (42) of the Church is indispensable to attain personhood. The Catholic Christ has an inherent ecclesial dimension just as the Catholic man has an intrinsic ecclesial profile. The Church is therefore the sacramental link between the divine pole and the human one.
The (Roman) Church safeguards the dignity of the person (41, 76), sheds light on the mystery of the person (10, 33, 41) and is the place where the person can fully accomplish his vocation (21, 42). While the focus seems to be on anthropology, the Church is always in the background. As she enjoys an intimate relationship with Christ, on the one hand, and with man, on the other, she is both the sacrament of the incarnate Christ and the sacrament of the unity of mankind. In her motherly attitude, she mediates personhood and dispenses it. The point is this: while advocating personhood, Rome advocates herself as the ecclesial locus in which a person can enjoy the fullness of her personhood.
Conclusion and Evaluation
Evangelicals can benefit from Rome on the dignity of the human person, and Gaudium et Spes provides some of Rome’s richest resources on this subject. In summary, human dignity 1) has its source in man’s telos—communion with God, 2) provides all men with an inherent indestructible worth, and 3) this dignity extends to every aspect of the human person. The breadth and depth of the dignity humans possess as the crown of creation demands that the political, social, and economic order of society should always be oriented towards serving the human person. GSfurther roots the mystery of human personhood and dignity in Christ, the Son of God and last Adam whose assumption of a human nature elevated the dignity of that nature. The great dignity of human persons both defines and provides dignity for human vocations. Because other people carry such great dignity, the right vocation for human beings is the elevation of the dignity and wellbeing of others, as well as the promotion of unity among mankind. On the surface, evangelicals can agree with just about all of this.
However, Vatican II’s theology of personhood is only superficially beneficial for evangelicals. As a matter of fact, it is dangerous. Its theological infrastructure seems fine because it retains biblical language, but its orientation is misleading. GS moves towards universalism by arguing that Christ’s death was for all men, since all carry the same dignity. Human dignity becomes an absolute: sin is downplayed, and God’s judgment is overlooked. Thus, Vatican II’s exhortations towards general human unity are not appropriately tempered by the exclusivity of the gospel and a fully orbed biblical anthropology. Finally, the council’s presentation of the church as the mediator of personhood by way of its sacramental relationship to Christ distorts both the nature of the church and the relationship between Christ and his people. While Christ is spoken of, it is the church with her sacraments that mediates His presence and dispenses His grace, thus inflating the role of the church itself. The most effective deceptions contain mostly truth, and thus is the case with Gaudium et Spes. Evangelicals will want to use great discernment with whatever counsel they hear from this supposed wilderness guide.
