The Contradictions and Inconsistencies of Cardinal Fernández

The new Prefect of the DDF has made a name for himself since his appointment, notably with the Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the blessing of same-sex couples, the new rules concerning private apparitions, and the text Dignitas Infinita on human dignity, published on March 25, 2024.

A commentary on this latter text by Cardinal Fernández, presented during a videoconference on February 17, 2025, at the Cologne Faculty of Theology, was published on the DDF website under the title: The Ontological Dignity of the Person in Dignitas Infinita. Some Clarifications.

"Infinite" Human Dignity

The cardinal's commentary seeks to explain the title of the document, "Infinite Dignity." It is the term "infinite" that is referred to. It is justified primarily by the fact that man is loved with an infinite love by God, conferring "on every human being an infinite dignity." The second justification notes that this dignity is "inalienable," and no circumstance can cause it to disappear or diminish.

The commentary adds that dignity can also be moral, which corresponds to the way of living, according to or against human nature; social, which refers to resources, their insufficiency leading to a life "unworthy" of the human condition; or existential, which concerns circumstances—illness, addictions, conflicts—that make life very difficult and therefore "unworthy."

A Serious Error

"Inalienable" ontological dignity was used at the Second Vatican Council to justify religious freedom. But this did not go so far as to disqualify the death penalty, which is present in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated in 1992 (no. 2267). Pope Francis, for his part, has drawn a categorical rejection of the death penalty from this, and he amended the CCC accordingly in 2018.

A first observation: it is quite surprising that the Church supported the death penalty until that date, and that it now says that "the death penalty is unacceptable because it violates the inviolability and dignity of the person." This is surprising given the Church's stance prior to the advent of Pope Francis. 

Second observation: Which of the two is more terrible? The "first death," that is, death to this world? Or the "second death" according to the Apocalypse, that is, hell? Thus, ontological human dignity would prohibit the imposition of a death sentence; but how could it not then prohibit the One who created and founded the Church from condemning His rational creature to the second death?

To escape this dilemma, there are only two solutions: either hell does not exist (or at least no one is condemned to it) or there is a doctrinal error. Even if it is true that ontological dignity is inalienable, it is not the ultimate reference for judging a person: it is radical—at the root of dignity—or even fundamental, but it is not final.

It is moral dignity that is at stake in relation to society. Does man use his nature to live according to virtue and righteous laws? Or, on the contrary, does he live in vice and crime? Likewise, in relation to God, does man seek to attain Him, or does he despise his Creator and Savior?

This is why a man can be judged and condemned by a human judge charged with defending society, even to the imposition of the death penalty, as the Tradition of the Church teaches. And Our Lord predicted that He would tell the just (the word should be emphasized) to come into His Father's kingdom to receive their reward, and that He would condemn the wicked to eternal fire... with their inalienable dignity.

Another Serious Deviation

The DDF prefect also examines the rejection of gender ideology and sex change procedures. For a "sex change is... the claim to a change of identity." "Human freedom, made omnipotent by technology, can create any alternative reality as it wishes," he explains. This condemnation was present in Dignitas Infinita.

But Cardinal Fernández adds: “We do not mean to say that we do not understand the profound suffering that exists in certain cases of ‘dysphoria.’… When the document [Dignitas Infinita] uses the expression ‘as a general rule,’ it does not exclude the possibility that there are exceptional cases, such as severe dysphoria that can lead to an unbearable existence, or even suicide. These exceptional situations must be evaluated with great care.”

La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana was the first to point out this lapse. To gauge its scope, we must return to the passage in Dignitas Infinita where the expression “as a general rule” is cited. Here it is:

“Any operation to change the sex of a human being normally risks jeopardizing the unique dignity which the person possesses from the moment of conception. This does not exclude the possibility that a person with genital anomalies, whether present at birth or developed later, may choose to undergo medical treatment to correct these anomalies. Such intervention would not constitute gender reassignment as we use the term here (60).” 

The reason is that these are interventions to reconcile biological sex and genital realities, which can diverge in certain pathologies, but are fortunately rare. It is therefore clear that "as a general rule" presents a case that is not a voluntary sex change, but rather a case of restorative surgery. But the new text extends this case to a psychological, even psychiatric, disorder: gender dysphoria.

If we accept this "exception," when it can lead "to an unbearable existence, even to suicide," there is no longer any morality. What should we say to a person suffering from a very painful illness with suicidal thoughts and requesting euthanasia? Or to a pregnant woman who perceives herself in an unbearable situation and is ready to end her life if she cannot have an abortion?

Could His Eminence calmly affirm that "these exceptional situations must be examined with great care"? In all three cases, the action to be taken is "intrinsically wrong" and can never be carried out directly without serious misconduct. The Cardinal Prefect of the DDF is introducing an "exception" that destroys morality entirely. 

Is he even aware of this?