Some people on the political right have tried to defend "America First" politics by arguing that it is supported by the Catholic philosophical concept of the "ordo amoris." J.D. Vance said something to the effect that we should love our family first, then our neighbors, then love our community, then our country, and only then consider the interests of the rest of the world. For some time after he said this, there was a lot of buzz among Catholic influencers on whether Vance's articulation of the ordo amoris really supported America first politics. There was so much buzz on the internet, in fact, that when I have tried to search for the exact quote, I can't even find it. He's quoted by different sources using slightly different words. This hasn't stopped people from weighing in, of course, and it won't stop me.
The ordo amoris has been used to justify ending international aid programs on the grounds that Americans should love America more than they love foreign nations. Vance is far from the only person I have heard argue for some form of America first politics based on the ordo amoris. In fact, I decided to write this little essay not in response to Vance but in response to a debate I saw between youtuber Kyla Turner (AKA, Notsoerudite) and controversial Catholic influencer Sarah Stock, the latter of whom attempted to articulate some version of this argument. As she puts it at one point, "I'm not loving my fellow countryman if I care about someone on the other side of the world." (Link) Now, this debate was terrible, and Sarah Stock was never fully able to articulate her position, mostly because Kyla Turner is an insufferably rude debater and kept interrupting. The point stands, however, that this type of argument is not limited to Vance.
What I want to point out in this short essay is not that Vance, Stock, or others are wrong to bring up the ordo amoris in discussions of political policy. Rather, I want to point out that the ordo amoris is actually much more expansive and dynamic than either Vance or Stock make it out to be. There are actually multiple orderings that form the ordo amoris, and what Vance offered if just one of those orderings. Here, I will point to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the ordo amoris, or ordo caritatis, as it is sometimes called. "Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others." This seems to be the order that Vance is concerned about. So far, so good. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to explain other orderings of love that must be considered. These include the order of goods and the order of necessity.
Regarding the order of goods, one must give greater love to the greater good. You should love helping a person attain virtue more than helping them attain fame. You should love educating the ignorant more than entertaining the bored. You should love maintaining your integrity over maintaining your reputation. Etc. The proper order of love puts the greater goods above the lesser goods.
Regarding the order of necessity, you should attend to caring for the more urgent need before caring for the more remote need. To use a famous example, if you walk by a shallow pond and see a child drowning, you should rescue the child, even it is means ruining your shoes. You should prioritize giving food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty above the less urgent need of providing comfort to the uncomfortable. You should provide constant care for infants and the elderly, not because they are more worthy of care than anyone else, but because they have the more constant need of it.
The ordo amoris might more properly be called the ordines amoris, the orders of love. There are multiple vectors of love that must be considered. When love is considered along multiple dimensions, suddenly that simple and easy order given by Vance falls apart. There may be times when my neighbor's needs are more urgent than my family's. There may be a time when the greater good is attained by a young man going to fight for his country rather than staying home and caring for his parents.
To see how this works, we can look at Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. In his discussion on the order of charity (ST, II-II, Q26), Aquinas states that we ought to love ourselves more than our neighbor (article 4). He asserts: "a man ought, out of charity, to love himself more than he loves any other person." However, Aquinas immediately goes on to clarify (article 5) that "as regards the welfare of the soul we ought to love our neighbor more than our own body." What this illustrates is, love of myself is not the same thing as love of what is mine. Love for my family is not the same thing as love for my family's possessions. Love for my country is not the same thing as love for my country's money. We may be required to give up possessions, even the possession of our very corporeal existence, for the greater good. This does not betray the ordo amoris. Rather, it recognizes that there are multiple vectors of consideration.
Central to the Christian concept of the ordo amoris is the equally important notion of Christian sacrifice. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matthew 16:24) "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) Sacrifice is, at heart, the idea that I will give up that which is closer in exchange for that which is greater. Sacrifice is not the subversion of the natural order; it is the acknowledgement that greater good is achieved only when we step outside the confines of our immediate loves.
A person who sacrifices his wealth, comfort, and worldly prospects to care for the poor in a foreign country is not violating the ordo amoris. On the contrary, they are following the dictates of attaining the greater good (their own virtue and prosperity of the world) and caring for the more urgent needs of those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Likewise, a country that sends tax dollars to care for malaria victims in Africa is not somehow breaking a divinely ordained order. Jesus never said to "sell what you have and give first to your wife and children, then your neighbors, then your community, etc." Instead he said to "sell what you have and give to the poor." (Matt. 19:21, Mark 10:21) Full stop.