Critic of Heiligenkreuz criticised Vatican document on human dignity for its treatment of gender issues

Walser: "Identity-political discourse"

Salzburg moral theologian Walser's assessment is nuanced, yet predominantly critical. She acknowledged the differentiations in the first part of the Vatican document, which distinguish between different levels of meaning (ontological, moral, existential, social) of human dignity. This is certainly helpful, Walser stated in her statement to Kathpress, in emphasizing the basis on which the Church defends human dignity as inherent and unconditional.

At the same time, however, the specific details in the document show that this fine distinction between the levels is not consistently maintained – particularly in the document's consistently critical stance on the topic of gender. "This is the usual identity-political discourse that is being demonstrated here," the moral theologian stated. The complexity of the debate is being undermined, "no evidence is cited, no mention is made of which theory is actually meant" – there are "unscientific, sweeping accusations and a lack of awareness of human science findings." All of this is "a great shame," since the document, with its various levels of application of the concept of dignity, actually has a toolbox at its disposal to address these questions in a more differentiated manner.

Walser is also irritated by the fact that the document, "like many church documents, makes no reference to history" and acts as if the church "has always been actively committed to human rights from the very beginning of its mission." However, this is not the case, Walser points out, for example, using the example of the church's attitude toward the dignity of women. "The church has often lagged behind secular discourses in this regard – and has thus also incurred guilt. But none of this is mentioned in the text – which is a shame and a missed opportunity."

Source