These denigrations carry a distinct scent of insincerity. Vance’s assertion is not only accurate, but it is also theologically unexceptional. None of the criticisms of his remark effectively challenge the fundamental argument. This implies that they are driven by personal hostility rather than guided by Catholic theology.

Based on Scripture

A specific passage of Scripture supports, in essence, the validity of Vance’s remark. In Matthew 22, Jesus was questioned, “Which commandment in the law is the most important?” He replied using the very concentric hierarchy that Vance described: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the foremost and greatest commandment. And a second one is akin to it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (Mt 22:37-40). This serves as the basis for the ordo amoris or “hierarchy of affection,” and Vance’s remark aligns well within it.

When Jesus called the apostles James, John, Andrew, and Peter were all engaged in supporting their family’s fishing enterprise. As the Gospels indicate, they promptly left their boats to follow Jesus (Mt 4:18-22, Mk 1:16-20, Lk 5:10). This demonstrates that love for Jesus surpasses familial ties. To emphasize this point further, in the narratives by Mark and Matthew, James and John forsook their father, who was in the boat repairing damaged nets, to pursue Jesus. As Vance’s critics rightly point out, this illustrates that Christian discipleship takes precedence over all other human connections. Our foremost and utmost affection must be directed towards Christ. This suggests, for instance, that one must be prepared to follow Christ even if it means going against family if they hinder the journey. Nothing Vance expressed contradicts this essential moral tenet. In fact, his explanation of the ordo amoris is completely in agreement with it.

Vance’s remark aligns with the teachings of St. Paul the Apostle. “Give honor to widows who are truly in need,” instructs St. Paul. However, “if a widow possesses children or grandchildren,” he adds, “they must first understand their obligation to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the eyes of God” (1 Tim 5:4). He encapsulates the principle by stating, “anyone who does not take care of their relatives, particularly family members, has renounced the faith and is worse than an infidel” (1 Tim 5:8). Vance’s expression of the ordo amoris is merely a rewording of this directive. In fact, it aligns closely with it. It is logistically unfeasible for a single community to provide support for every widow. Therefore, those who have the means are instructed to help those nearest to them, allowing additional resources to be allocated for those who cannot. Put differently, Paul endorses a concentric ordo amoris for societal policy implications, starting with the family unit.

Towards a broad, yet cautious, immigration strategy

I have expressed skepticism regarding JD Vance’s language concerning immigrants and immigration. Terminology such as “mass deportations” and “unauthorized immigrants” harms public conversation and diverts attention from the necessity of sound immigration policy. Vance was similarly incorrect in implying that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has benefited from federal funding for the U.S. refugee resettlement initiative. He owes the bishops an apology for that misguided statement. assertion.

I have also suggested that immigration policy should begin with the necessity to embrace the immigrant, rather than solely focusing on border security. Nationalistic and self-centered rhetoric ought to be shunned, substituted with the vocabulary of dignity, subsidiarity, solidarity, and the common good. Border policy should be guided by love, not merely national security. When applied with prudence and charity, this approach would result in a policy that is generous, rather than limiting.

However, immigration policy cannot compromise the common good of the host nation. It is unkind both to newcomers and the local population, for instance, to allow mass migration of violent offenders, drug traffickers, human traffickers, previously convicted individuals, and cartel members. Additionally, it is not aligned with compassion to place financial strains on a community that it cannot manage.

This is the reason the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that we should be wholeheartedly welcoming to immigrants while also being responsibly protective of the common good. “The more affluent nations have a duty, to the extent they can, to embrace the stranger seeking the safety and the resources to live that they cannot find in their homeland,” states paragraph 2241 of the Catechism. Conversely, it adds, “political leaders, in the interest of the common good for which they are accountable, may impose various legal conditions on the exercise of the right to immigrate, particularly concerning the immigrants’ responsibilities toward their new country.” These reciprocal teachings necessitate thoughtful consideration and careful enforcement of the law.

Vance’s expression of the hierarchy of love aligns with both of these requirements. His critics have insincerely suggested that Vance claimed, “Love your family; despise everyone else.” However, he actually stated, “love everyone.” And as Jesus himself instructs, this love must be rightly arranged. Figuring out how this manifests in public policy is no simple endeavor. Nevertheless, Catholic analysts should strive to be truthful regarding the validity of the teaching, instead of condemning it merely because the “incorrect” individual voiced it.