JD Vance, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the ‘Ordo Amoris’ and Immigration

Our site statistics informed me yesterday and today that we had a disproportionate number of hits on two pieces from 2022 and 2023: “Real Love is Ordered” and “We Are Measured by the Quality of Our Loves.” Since I saw no evidence of anyone linking to those articles from other websites, I was a little mystified. Then it dawned on me that these postings included the phrase “ordo amoris” (the order of love) and realized that it was all JD Vance’s fault!

In a controversy over Trump immigration policies, the Vice President used that phrase and suggested people Google it, which some hundreds obviously did. (Thanks for the traffic, Mr. Vance!) Unfortunately, those articles did not directly consider the aspect under which Vance was using the phrase. I intend to fill that void now, with help from a wonderful passage from Saint Thomas Aquinas.

But first, what did JD Vance say that caused the kerfuffle and his subsequent reference to the ordo amoris? The answer is here:

The ordo amoris begins with God. We are to love God first. The omission here is, I assume, unintentional as the subject under consideration was charity for one’s neighbor.

There was a huge reaction against Vance’s statement by people suggesting that this somehow violated the wisdom of the Gospels, which, in their view, justifies a reckless immigration policy of porous borders, all motivated by Christian charity.

To this blow-back, specifically from one Rory Stewart, the Vice President responded,

Not one to let a culture-war inspired teaching moment pass him by, Professor Edward Feser agreed with Vance and cited Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter, and this passage, to my mind, gives a sufficiently subtle and prudent response to those defending limitless illegal immigration, whose idea of charity is so diffusive that it actually harms their neighbor:

Aquinas: “Augustine says: ‘Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us’…

Now the order of nature is such that every natural agent pours forth its activity first and most of all on the things which are nearest to it… But the bestowal of benefits is an act of charity towards others. Therefore we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us.

Now one man’s connection with another may be measured in reference to the various matters in which men are engaged together; (thus the intercourse of kinsmen is in natural matters, that of fellow-citizens is in civic matters, that of the faithful is in spiritual matters, and so forth): and various benefits should be conferred in various ways according to these various connections, because we ought in preference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to the matter in which, speaking simply, he is most closely connected with us. And yet this may vary according to the various requirements of time, place, or matter in hand: because in certain cases one ought, for instance, to succor a stranger, in extreme necessity, rather than one’s own father, if he is not in such urgent need…

For it must be understood that, other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man.” (Summa Theologiae II-II.31.3)

If the father of a family were, out of charity, to allow potentially dangerous homeless people access to his home, where his wife and children sleep, he would be doing harm to his family, and that would violate the order of charity. (This is not to say all homeless people are dangerous.) Our community knew a man who was murdered by a homeless woman he was attempting to help. He allowed her into his home. He could take that risk as he had nobody else he was putting in danger, but it would have been sinful for him to endanger others.

That same reasoning can be applied to a nation whose citizens it is the first duty of its rulers to protect and serve. This is the bonum commune communitatis (the common good of the community) that the political class is supposed to serve.

This does not militate against immigration, but it does argue for limits, and the Church has explicitly defended those limits on immigration:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. (CCC 2241)

Later, in 2004, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

3. As regards immigrants and refugees, building conditions of peace means in practice being seriously committed to safeguarding first of all the right not to emigrate, that is, the right to live in peace and dignity in one’s own country. By means of a farsighted local and national administration, more equitable trade and supportive international cooperation, it is possible for every country to guarantee its own population, in addition to freedom of expression and movement, the possibility to satisfy basic needs such as food, health care, work, housing and education; the frustration of these needs forces many into a position where their only option is to emigrate.

Equally, the right to emigrate exists. This right, Bl. John XXIII recalls in the Encyclical Mater et Magistra, is based on the universal destination of the goods of this world (cf. nn. 30 and 33). It is obviously the task of Governments to regulate the migratory flows with full respect for the dignity of the persons and for their families’ needs, mindful of the requirements of the host societies. In this regard, international Agreements already exist to protect would-be emigrants, as well as those who seek refuge or political asylum in another country. There is always room to improve these agreements.

Back to Saint Thomas, in the larger context of the Summa, the Angelic Doctor is considering “beneficence,” which he holds to be one of the “exterior effects” of charity. What he writes about the entire matter — including his assertion that “the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man” — is intellectually unassailable.

To learn more of what Saint Thomas had to say on the subject of immigration, I recommend John Horvat’s piece, “What Does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration?”

Dr. Feser stated, in another post:


To which Dr. Anthony Esolen responded,

Brother Francis used to illustrate a certain false notion of charity that so many Christians have by citing the absurd spectacle of Marilyn Monroe famously telling thousands of American military men in Korea, “I Love you all!” in 1954. These men were not known to her; her love of them could be little more than an abstraction. Brother Francis also said that many who claimed to love “humanity” often did the greatest harm to real humans. This is because their charity was really a false ideology in the guise of love.

I thought of Brother when I encountered this quote from Dostoyevsky that one William Wolfe shared:

Filed Under: Catholic America, Columns, Current Issues in the Church, Morals, Politics and Society