Concentric Circles of Love

Pope Leo XIV made his statement "JD Vance is wrong.  Jesus does not ask us to rank our love for others" this year, but before he became Pope.  Vance's comment was for an interview with the Irish Times on January 29, with Vance claiming that the Christian doctrine of ordo amoris describes an order of love, first for family, neighbor, community, citizens, rest of the world.

The Pope is correct, but not entirely. Vance is wrong, but not entirely. To put the matter bluntly, I am much more concerned that a Pope is wrong in his practical theology for political reasons than that a new convert politician is wrong in his doctrinal theology for political reasons. Ordo amoris originates* with Augustine. Thomas Aquinas wrote about it with some attempt at precision. Can we stipulate that Augustine and Aquinas were probably familiar with the story of the Good Samaritan and Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats? They were likely to have taken those into account in their overall theological outlook?

And yet here is Aquinas:

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, we ought in preference to bestow on each one such benefits as pertain to the matter in which [...] 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...

The case may occur, however, that one ought rather to invite strangers (to eat), on account of their greater want. 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. Beneficence, Summa theologiae

Paul writes to Timothy But those who won’t care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers. Jesus gives John to his mother, and his mother to John in some closer obligation of love than what already existed.  Jesus occasionally healed at a distance, but mostly, it was those in front of him. He did not heal all lepers in Galilee, though presumably he could have. Paul takes up a collection for believers in other cities, not for the poor of those cities.  He does make a point of telling the churches they should not neglect the poor.  But the churches also show charity first to their own widows and orphans, not to their cities as a whole, and are not upbraided for it.  It has been important in church history that the circle of love, forgiveness, grace, charity ever expand in wider circles.  But there is no advice that circles should be intentionally skipped to be super-spiritual, not because that would be evil, but because human nature doesn't tend to work that way and we are likely to increase love not at all.

CS Lewis wrote about it being harder to forgive the sins of the Nazis because they were so horrible, but also that it was easier because it carried no personal cost to love at a distance. Loving those in our families, or in our neighborhoods, or at our churches has a sting and a difficulty. He cautioned that it is a great temptation in our day to put on spiritual airs that we are more loving because we love the whole world and do not confine ourselves to our own tribe. Yet convincing ourselves that we love at a distance is often only a disguise for hating some nearby. Love that aims higher or farther might be more easily made diabolical because of self-deception. The Pope has upbraided Trump and Vance and their supporters for their attitudes toward immigrants. This administration may indeed deserve criticism on that score. But to give something at a governmental level (as opposed to the personal level of the person you see on the street) means to deprive others. We are taking things of value - money, the special rights of citizenship, safety - from people who we might be expected to feel some obligation toward to give to others solely because they have demanded it.

I don't find it anywhere recorded that some early Christians had any temptation to show off by bragging that they were giving to Samaritans rather than the poor nearby, so they must be more advanced in the faith.  Yet we very much have that temptation in our day, of the politically-minded hating their fellow citizens, their churches, and even family members because they don't "love" some group of fashionable Others.  To ignore this very real temptation from the present day is a very wide miss by the Pope.  Perhaps there is more to his thought on this that I have not been told.  I certainly hope there is.

This smacks very much of the influence of Liberation Theology, so popular in Latin America for a time, that America has nice things so they must have gotten them in some unfair way and should therefore give them to other people. Perhaps free immigration should be a policy of the RCC and of all Christians.  But I note that Vatican City is somehow not overrun with immigrants. Does this theology only depend on whose ox is gored?

There is also the pastoral question of whether the Pope when a cardinal was right to be so dismissive, giving no quarter that Vance had some foundation in good theology in the matter but was misunderstanding some key point. I admit this gets tricky.  The statement to the world is also part of such pastoral decisions and the cardinal may have thought hard about how to balance conflicting needs, speaking in a manner he might not have in private counseling. But it doesn't look that way from what  have in front of me.

*As much as any idea "originates" with a single person, anyway.  There were important precursors.