In a email sent to U. S. bishops on Tuesday, Pope Francis attacked President Trump’s immigration plan, calling the government’s plan for mass deportations” a big crisis”, and condemning “any measure that implicitly or explicitly identifies the unlawful status of some migrants with criminality”. The bishop also appeared to take a tap at recent remarks by Vice President J. D. Vance about the Catholic principle of , ordo amoris, the purchase of charity, as it relates to illegal immigration.  ,
The first thing to claim about , the priest’s letter , is that, like most statements from Francis about modern political and cultural things, it’s unclear exactly what he means. In some places, he appears to contradict or misinterpret Catholic doctrine, and in others, he employs hazy terminology that could be interpreted in different ways.  ,
It would be easy to interpret the email as nothing more than romantic but unflinching platitudes about individual dignity and the need for Catholics to care for the poor if it were taken out of context from his past comments on immigration. But considered in environment, it’s obvious that Francis wants to indicate that he’s against Trump and Vance on emigration. He also appears to think that all poor and underprivileged people have the right to immigrate to the United States, or at least that deporting them may be improper.
Deporting people who face some pain in their household state, writes Francis, “damages the respect of many men and women, and of whole families, and places them in a condition of specific vulnerability and defenselessness”. He then makes a connection between the rule of law and the protection of all people’s dignity, stating that” an authentic rule of law is confirmed precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized.”
It’s unclear if the pope is saying here that laws against illegal immigration, regardless of whether a migrant is poor or marginalized, are unjust. American immigration law does indeed stipulate that , all , illegal or unauthorized entry into the country is a criminal offense, and those who break those laws are subject to removal — that is, deportation. Does Francis think such laws are illegitimate? That they do not constitute an “authentic rule of law”?
If so, it’s unclear how such a view squares with , the relevant section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which obliges prosperous nations to welcome foreigners in search of security” to the extent they are able”, but also allows political authorities,” for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible”, to attach conditions on immigration. According to the catechism, the immigrant also has to perform certain obligations toward the country of adoption, such as:” Immigrants are required to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to follow its laws, and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
The plain text of the catechism, then, would seem to prohibit migrants from illegally entering another country — especially one that, like the United States, has passed laws against illegal immigration that carry criminal penalties, including deportation.
Given that, it’s difficult to disagree with Francis ‘ assertion that a “rightly formed conscience” must reject any policy that “identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality” because these people’s illegal status is directly the result of their illegal behavior, specifically crossing the border without crossing the law. ( Indeed, the Holy See itself restricts unauthorized entry onto its territory, and in December , sharply increased the criminal penalties for illegal entry into Vatican City, including higher fines and longer prison sentences. )  ,
Additionally, the catechism makes it clear that political leaders are in charge of” the common good.” The common good is not understood universally, but it is meant to be the common good of the community or nation for which a given political authority is accountable, according to the passage’s context.
By contrast, the pope’s letter suggests that it’s un-Christian , not , to welcome illegal immigrants into one’s country, and that” the common good” should be understood not only in terms of one’s own nation but on a universal level:” The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all … welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable”.
Nowhere, though, does Francis distinguish between respecting the rights of , citizens , who are” the most fragile, unprotected, and vulnerable”, and , migrants , who are likewise vulnerable. But that distinction is crucial because it informs a political authority’s responsibility to ensure the common good for its citizens as well as how it informs a correct understanding of the Catholic concept of the “order of charity,” ordo amoris, or “order of charity”.
J. D. Vance injected , ordo amoris , into the public debate over immigration in , a recent interview with Fox News ‘ Sean Hannity , when he said, “you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world”.
He continued,” Many of the far left has completely inverted that. They appear to care more about people living outside their own borders than the citizens of their own country. That is no way to run a society”.
This is more or less an accurate description of , ordo amoris, which was a phrase used by Saint Augustine in his classic work , City of God , as a definition of virtue. In one of Augustine’s other works, On Christian Doctrine, he expands on the concept of right-ordered charity, describing a virtuous man as someone who “keeps his affections also under strict control, so that he neither loves what he ought to love nor does not love what he ought to love, nor loves what equally ought to be loved less, nor loves that less or more ought to be loved equally nor loves that less or more ought to be loved equally.”
Centuries later, Saint Thomas Aquinas expanded further on this concept, arguing that the principle of rightly ordered charity ( what Aquinas called , ordo caritatis ) is hierarchical and interconnected, beginning with our love of God and then moving outward from there to ourselves, our families, neighbors, and so on. In his epic work,  , Summa Theologiae, he writes,” 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”. But, adds Aquinas, the application of the principle might vary depending on circumstances,” 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”.
So this is not to say we don’t love all people as Christ commanded. But in practice, our nearest relationships carry with them immediate obligations, such as caring for one’s own family and one’s own town or city. The Catholic Church has a well-established teaching that appears twice in the catechism, first when it comes to the Fourth Commandment ( honor your father and mother ), which states that” the duty of one’s country is to love and serve one’s country and belongs to the order of charity.” Citizens are required to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community by giving a speech to legitimate authorities and serving the common good.
Extending the logic of this principle doesn’t mean being indifferent to the plight of the stranger or the migrant, but it does mean looking after one’s own community and people and nation , before , looking after those who live in other regions and other countries.
In contrast, Francis ‘ letter presents a different view of , ordo amoris, one that appears, at best, to be in tension with the catechism and prior teaching of the Catholic Church, and, at worst, to be a misrepresentation of it, however inadvertent. The statement, which seems to be directed at Vance but doesn’t accurately reflect what Vance actually said, is that” Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that gradually extends to other persons and groups,” is written by Francis. Later, Francis says,” The true , ordo amoris , that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the’ Good Samaritan ‘ … that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception”.
Pope Francis is of course correct that Christians should reflect on and work to establish a fraternity that is accessible to all. However, he should have clarified in light of the ongoing immigration debate in America that the Catholic Church does indeed support an order of charity as well as the obligation of political leaders to protect their citizens and ensure immigrants adhere to the laws of the nations they adopt as their own.  ,
In a country where more than 10 million foreign nationals have entered the country illegally over the past four years, record amounts of illicit and deadly drugs, and the human misery and suffering that cartel-controlled mass illegal immigration has produced, all of these things are crucially important when considering immigration policy, especially in a country where all of these things are seemingly absent from the pope’s letter to U.S. bishops.
It’s unfortunate that Pope Francis didn’t address any of this, in part because his failure to do so will likely lessen his authority in speaking to Americans about immigration at a time when his position as the leader of the Catholic Church is sorely needed.
