The Sacred Order of Love: Defending J.D. Vance’s Ordo Amoris
Last week Vice President J.D. Vance brought to the forefront a concept that should be common sense but in today’s inverted world is apparently highly controversial: the ordo amoris or “order of love.” Vance’s defence of this principle somehow stirred a significant debate, particularly in how it applies to immigration and national loyalty. Vance’s understanding of this concept, however, draws on the wisdom of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the broader teaching of the Church.
Firstly, let’s establish what ordo amoris means. St. Augustine, in his seminal work The City of God discusses the importance of ordering our loves correctly, suggesting that when we love things inappropriately or out of order, we sin. For Augustine, every love, even the love of neighbor, must be ordered beneath the love of God. This hierarchy extends to our human relationships where love for family, community, and nation should precede our love for the world at large, not in intensity but in priority of duty and responsibility.
Vance, invoking this tradition, articulated a sentiment that echoes St. Thomas’s teachings in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas, expanding on Augustine, specifies that our love should follow a certain order. First the love of God, then the love of neighbor, and within the love of neighbor exists an order of love according to the degree of nearness (II-II, Q. 26, A. 6). This isn’t about loving some people more than others in essence, but about recognizing the obligations that come with proximity and kinship.
Proximity matters when it comes to charity, simply because we are limited beings. If I’m walking by a burning building, then a child stuck in that building demands my charity more at that moment than my own child safe back at home. That’s what the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us. But if a child across the world is stuck in a burning building, then I have no obligation to help him, simply because I’m a limited being who can’t help everyone.And not just physical proximity, but familial and filial proximity also matters. We are given certain people in our lives who are always “proximate” due to their relationship with us. So I’m obligated to help my own child who is suffering even if he is across the world, due to my familial proximity.
It’s simply impossible to act charitably in any other way, else we’d be guilty for not helping everyone suffering in the world.
Vance’s comments, particularly in relation to national policy and immigration, align with this Catholic tradition of ordo amoris. He states that one’s primary duty is to one’s family, then to neighbors and community, and then to the nation. Only after these obligations are met should one consider the broader world. This approach does not negate the Christian call to universal love; rather, it prioritizes responsibilities in a way that reflects the natural and divine order of relationships.
Critics cite the parable of the Good Samaritan to argue that Vance’s view contradicts the Gospel’s universal call to love one’s neighbor. However, this interpretation misses the ordered nature of Christian love. The Good Samaritan does not imply that we neglect our family or country for distant strangers. Instead, it teaches us to extend love beyond our immediate circle when the opportunity arises, without neglecting our primary duties. As St. Thomas notes, while we are to love all universally, “we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us” (Summa II-II, Q. 31, A. 3).
Moreover, Vance’s stance is consistent with Catholic social teaching which acknowledges the legitimacy of nations and the duty of states to care for their citizens first. Pope Pius XII, in Exsul Familia Nazarethana, recognizes the right of states to regulate immigration in light of the common good. Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2241) states, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.”
Catholics who label Vance’s views as “nativist” or “anti-Christian” are therefore rejecting the Church’s teaching. Catholic teaching does not advocate for open borders without consideration but rather for a responsible approach where the love and care for one’s own are foundational, not exclusionary of others. This is not about loving one’s own at the expense of others but about ensuring that love is given in the right order, reflecting the natural law and divine command.
Furthermore, Vance’s perspective is also a defense against the modern inversion of love where globalism trumps localism, leading to a neglect of one’s immediate community or family. This inversion, as Vance suggests, is indeed un-Christian when it leads to the neglect of those we are most directly responsible for. As St. Augustine warns, disordered loves lead to sin, and in today’s context, this could mean neglecting the poor within one’s own community (or even in one’s own family) for the sake of a more abstract, less immediate global community.
From a practical standpoint, Vance’s advocacy for ordo amoris serves as a critique of policies that prioritize foreign interests over national ones. This inversion of ordo amoris helps explain why liberals love sending Americans overseas to die for other countries while doing nothing to protect us from the invasion at our borders. This isn’t about xenophobia but about prudent stewardship of national resources and responsibilities. The Catholic Church, while calling for global solidarity, also emphasizes subsidiarity and the principle that problems should be solved at the most immediate or local level possible.
Vice President Vance’s articulation of ordo amoris is not only defensible but laudable from a Catholic perspective. It echoes the teachings of the Church’s greatest thinkers and aligns with the social doctrines that balance universal charity with particular duties. In a world where love is often disordered by political ideologies or globalist policies, Vance’s reminder of the proper hierarchy of love is a call back to the roots of Christian charity: ordered, responsible, and reflective of divine love.
Vance, by invoking this ancient but timeless principle, invites us to consider how we love — not less universally, but more correctly, ensuring that our loves reflect the order God intended. This is not merely a political stance but a moral one, deeply rooted in the Catholic understanding of love as a reflection of divine order. Thus, defending Vance’s perspective is, in essence, defending the very structure of love as taught by the Catholic Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment