The Right Ordering of Love in the Political Sphere

The ordo amoris (the “order of love”) is a concept found in St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas that, outside of theological circles, was little discussed in recent times until it resurfaced in remarks by Vice President J.D. Vance. Those remarks, in turn, drew pushback in a February 10 letter from Pope Francis to the Catholic bishops of the United States.

Vance raised the issue during a January 30 interview about immigration. He insisted that prioritizing those closer to you by reason of objective relationships does not mean “you hate people from outside” those relationships. It does mean, he claimed, that “you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus [on] and prioritize the rest of the world.” Vance used that example in contrast to what he considers the global Left’s approach, which seems to suggest that government leaders should “care more about people outside their own borders” than their fellow citizens.

The Pope objected, insisting:

Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation. The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception. (no. 6)

Both men are right.

Another forgotten concept in good theology, an essential methodological starting point, is clarification of terms. If there’s any term in English more likely to generate confusion, it’s love — and I don’t really think love per se (as opposed to concrete actions done in its name) is what Vance had in mind. Perhaps Vance’s greatest fault was his use of the words love, then, and after that. Love of neighbor is always universal. Love is not a step-by-step “then” and “after that” process that must be completed in Ring A before moving to Ring B and so forth. The Pope rightly objects to a concept of Christian love that seems to seep out “little by little,” extending into ever broader circles. And Francis is correct that the Parable of the Good Samaritan frames our horizon of love: we are called to love everyone without exception, what the Pope describes as “a fraternity open to all.”

But Francis mischaracterizes Vance’s rhetorical model by describing it as “a concentric expansion of interests” (interessi; emphasis added). Vance did not speak of “interests” (even if Francis might have interpreted him that way) but of love, which suggests that Vance’s conscience wrestled with how morally to prioritize claims made in love’s name.

So, if both men are right and both wrong, how can we better understand the problem? Perhaps it’s neither “love” per se nor even just “interests” but how that “loving” takes concrete form in a given situation. I offer these thoughts as a possible way to square this circle and invite critical feedback.