David Kirchhoffer

It has been said that human dignity is a vacuous concept that should, therefore, be dismissed as an ethical category. This article seeks to defend the concept of human dignity by suggesting, first, that the flaw in the logic of those who claim that human dignity is a vacuous concept lies in an unjustifiable reductionism that results from the hermeneutic of suspicion that such authors apply to the concept. Second, that human dignity is not an either/or concept, as these authors would suggest, but rather a both/and concept in which the contradictions that they would use for its dismissal are indeed where human dignity’s value as an ethical category lies. This is achieved by applying both a hermeneutic of suspicion and a hermeneutic of generosity to a reading of Gaudium et Spes. The result is a heuristic of human dignity in which dignity is shown to be something that all human beings all already have and, at the same time, still seek to acquire through morally good behaviour. The Component Dimensions of Dignity model addresses this tension in various aspects of the human condition: existential, behavioural, cognitive, and social. In so doing it provides a heuristic tool that can serve both a descriptive and a normative function in ethical discourse, because it can help us to see not only why people may engage in a particular course of action but also the extent to which this action really meets the proviso of the social component dimension of the model, namely, that my dignity is only ever fulfilled if the dignity of all others is brought to fulfilment

Australians responded enthusiastically to the calling of the Synod, though there appears to be a tension between expectations of doctrinal reform and pastoral reform. The Bishops Conference allowed each diocese to consult as it saw fit and submit its findings, in light of which a committee of four bishops drafted the official submission to the Synod. Other materials were also sent to the Synod office, including some directly by dioceses and other Catholic organisations. The dioceses surveyed made the preparatory document and questionnaire available online and in print. There was a high level of frustration expressed with the complexity of many of the questions. The Conference and most dioceses did not publish the findings of the consultation or their submission to the Synod. Nonetheless, these are likely to reveal trends with regard to co-habitation, pre-marital sex, contraception, the treatment of divorced Catholics and same-sex marriage similar to those of other western countries based on an analysis of existing quantitative data from the National Church Life Survey, diocesan reports to which the researchers were given access, and the Catholic media. There is an apparent disconnect between the lived experience of many Catholics and Church teaching in these areas. Moreover, there is a tension between issues of doctrinal confusion, doctrinal rejection, and pastoral care which could have consequences for whether the Synod should consider doctrinal reform or need only focus on pastoral care. Most importantly, the responses demonstrate that Catholics in Australia want to be better informed about Church teaching, want to be consulted about these matters, and want to have a say in the formulation of Church teaching. Not taking these wishes seriously risks further alienating many Catholics from the Church who express a disjuncture between Church teaching and their own life experience in these matters.