JD Vance vs the Popes
What exactly is St. Augustine’s ordo amoris, and why is it controversial?
I’m already on record as not thinking very highly of Donald Trump, virtue-wise, so I might as well go after his Vice President too. In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say. As usual, though, I don’t mean to mount a partisan attack, since I don’t think of myself as a Democrat, nor are my comments going to address details of policy, since I am not qualified to say anything particularly original in that department.
Rather, I’m going to focus on a theological (and, hence, philosophical) dispute between J.D. Vance and not just one, but two Popes.
On 29 January 2025, Vance said in an interview on Fox News: “There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.” [1] Vance referred to an unspecified “old school” Christian concept, which he later identified with the notion of ordo amoris (literally, hierarchy of love) articulated by St. Augustine.
As a former Catholic myself, that immediately smelled like nonsense on stilts. If anything, Vance seemed to be describing a Stoic principle, the circles of concern of Hierocles, as expressed in his elements of Ethics. Except that Hierocles’s point was quite different and wouldn’t lend support to Vance’s endorsement of massive deportation of undocumented immigrants: Hierocles said that we should contract those circles so that we train ourselves to love strangers as if they were family. Besides, Vance doesn’t strike me as a Stoic, so that was a very unlikely connection anyway.
Shortly before dying, Pope Francis took Vance to task in a letter he wrote to American bishops. On February 10th Francis stated that “an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized [which] does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. … Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. … The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘good Samaritan’ (Luke 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” [2] Francis went on to add that:
“The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
In a commentary on the controversy published in the National Catholic Register, Father Raymond J. de Souza made the following observation:
“The conflict between the Holy Father and Vance is likely more about language than theology. It is difficult to hear in the Trump-Vance rhetoric love for the immigrant, whether properly ordered or not. Francis insists that even those refused entry, or returned, are to be treated with dignity and fit within the ordo amoris.” [3]
That is to say, Vance not only doesn’t seem to know what ordo amoris actually means, he is also being grossly hypocritical.
But don’t just trust one Pope, get a second opinion! On May 8, 2025, American cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected Pope, choosing the name Leo XIV. The name already is not good news for the MAGA crowd, which has promptly dismissed the new Pontiff (a word that literally means “bridge maker,” as opposed to, you know, walls) as—and I’m not making this up “a Marxist puppet.” The name chosen by Prevost is an homage to Leo XIII, who was Pope between 1878 and 1903. He was known as the Pope of the workers, in part because in his encyclical “Rerum novarum,” subtitled “On the conditions of labor,” Leo defended the rights of workers to a fair wage, safe working conditions, and the formation of trade unions, at the same time affirming the rights to property and free enterprise, thus opposing both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. Oh boy.
Anyway, Prevost criticized Vance even before becoming Pope. In a tweet posted on 13 February 2025 [4] the future Leo XIV shared a number of links to articles critical of Vance’s take on ordo amoris. Prevost ought to know, since he actually belongs to the order of the Augustinians!
So, what exactly is this ordo amoris, and is it really so difficult or subtle that it lends itself to such divergent interpretations? St. Augustine’s doctrine of the order of love is indeed a central concept in his moral and theological thought. The “ordo” refers to the proper ordering of human loves and desires according to their true value and in alignment with God’s intended hierarchy. For Augustine, the problem is that humans love in a disorderly fashion, placing temporary, material goods above eternal, spiritual ones.
Augustine explained that the proper hierarchy looks like this instead: (i) God stands at the summit as the highest good, worthy of supreme love; (ii) Spiritual goods (virtue, wisdom, soul) deserve greater love than material goods; (iii) People should be loved for their own sake, not merely as means to ends; and (iv) Material goods should be used rather than enjoyed, that is they should be appreciated, but not as ultimate ends. As you can see, the hierarchy as absolutely nothing to do with a ranking of people; it is, rather, a ranking of (perceived vs true) goods. Sound to me like Vance needs to retake catechism 101…
Augustine’s broader point is that sin fundamentally stems from disordered love, from loving lesser goods inappropriately or excessively. The virtuous life, therefore, involves gradually reordering one’s loves to match the above mentioned divine hierarchy, bringing harmony to the soul and proper relationship with God and creation. This idea influenced Christian ethical thought throughout the medieval period and continues to shape theological discussions about desire, love, and the moral life.
Now, above I mentioned the Stoics, and it turns out that there is definitely a connection between Augustine’s ordo amoris and Stoic ideas, though with some significant differences. Both frameworks do address the proper ordering of attachments and desires. The Stoics emphasized that virtue alone is the true good, while external things (wealth, health, reputation) are “indifferents” that should be approached with rational detachment. This parallels Augustine’s hierarchy, with the distinction that God, not virtue, is the supreme good.
Augustine himself was well-versed in Stoic thought through his knowledge of authors like Cicero and Seneca. Indeed, he admired the Stoic emphasis on controlling passions (i.e., unhealthy emotions) through reason and the Stoic focus on inner virtue over external goods.
However, Augustine’s Christian framework also differs significantly from Stoicism. While the Stoics sought self-sufficiency through rational detachment, Augustine believed that human fulfillment comes through a loving dependence on God. For the Stoics, the goal was virtue (arete), for Augustine it was rightly ordered love (caritas). Augustine ultimately found Stoicism insufficient because it lacked the transformative power of divine grace, since he believed that properly ordered love requires God’s help, not just rational discipline. I think Augustine was exactly wrong here, but that’s a discussion for another time. The point is that while Augustine borrowed the Stoic concept of rational ordering of desires, he transformed it within a Christian theological framework centered on love rather than detachment.
Going back to the current controversy, for me the broader question is the same that puzzles figures like Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV: how can one be a Christian and engage in the sort of policies and treatment of immigrants that the Trump-Vance administration has made a top priority? It requires an inordinate amount of tolerance for cognitive dissonance as well as an incredible ability to constantly execute logical somersaults for someone at the same time to willfully engage in persecution of immigrants, legal or not, and piously go to Church (or, less piously, sell bibles made in China).
Recently I participated in a panel discussion on the alleged tyranny of reason and pointed out that the problem isn’t reason, but rationalization. Vance initially was a “never Trumper,” calling the current President “an idiot,” “reprehensible,” and “America’s Hitler.” What happened? Vance must have decided that power is more important than integrity and, since he himself is no idiot, has ever since been engaged in deep rationalizations of his new positions. But don’t trust me, ask two Popes.
_____
[1] National Catholic Reporter, “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others,” by Kat Armas.
[2] Catholic News Agency, “Pope Francis, Vance clash over ‘ordo amoris,’” by Jonah McKeown.
[3] National Catholic Register, “Pope Francis’ Unprecedented Letter to US Bishops Stresses an Open Heart, Not an Open Border,” by Father Raymond J. de Souza.
[4] Cincinnati Inquirer, “Pope Leo XIV criticized Vice President JD Vance on immigration, ‘ordo amoris,’” by Haley BeMiller.
Thank you for this. I was partly raised by sweet catholic nuns. Having read a bit about Vance’s conversion to Catholicism and his chosen patron saint, I really was puzzled by Vance’s statement. Goes to show, religion can be misused as a “life hack” by the tech bros just like Stoicism. What’s next? Multiple choice commandments?
Thanks for sharing, Massimo.
I was very glad to see Francis correcting Vance. While there are instances where the Church’s position clearly aligns with certain political platforms—such as its stance on abortion—this was a clear misuse of Christian doctrine to justify a political agenda unrelated to the Church’s teachings on immigration. It would be interesting to analyze whom Vance was addressing in that interview. Some have suggested he was speaking primarily to his core base—likely from states with strong Christian majorities—especially given that the remarks were made on Fox News. He may not have anticipated the broader backlash or that his comments would gain such wide attention. Francis, in contrast, has historically been quite attuned to the nuances of political and media discourse. The new Pope also seems quite thoughtful and reasonable, and will likely uphold a similarly discerning approach. It will be especially interesting to observe how his background as a mathematician shapes his theological and philosophical perspectives on contemporary issues, like technology!
Finally, as I delve deeper into the relationship between Stoicism and Christianity, which is my central area of research for my thesis, I’m coming across some fascinating material that may deserve closer analysis. One such example is an excerpt from Augustine’s City of God, where he criticizes Cato the Younger for committing suicide, and more broadly, denounces the Stoic justification of suicide. However, Augustine seems to overlook a crucial point: Cato didn’t take his own life out of despair or unhappiness. Rather, he refused to live under Caesar’s rule, rejecting the idea of being pardoned, which he saw as a form of subjugation that would legitimize Caesar’s authority over him and his lineage. That, to me, sounds quite Stoic!
https://gutenberg.org/files/45305/45305-h/45305-h.htm#Page_305
I can't believe that at the 4th century A.D. thinkers like him didn't know about Cato's real intentions. Do you think he intentionally overlooked that to make a point?
Thanks!!