On the day of his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order called “Protecting the American People against Invasion”. It was not language designed to ingratiate himself with the American people’s Catholic bishops. The president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, described the executive order as “deeply troubling” and predicted that it “will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us”.

To defend the new Administration’s initiative, Vice-President Vance, a Catholic convert, invoked his favourite theologian, the 5th century bishop and philosopher, St Augustine, whose opinion was that people who deserve our good will are ranked in a hierarchy. “Just google ‘ordo amoris’,” he tweeted in response to a critic. “Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?”

Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone? https://t.co/otvv5g1wFN

— JD Vance (@JDVance) January 30, 2025

By the way, in answer to Vance’s rhetorical question, yes, there really are people who think that their duties to children in Zambia are the same as duties to their children. The leading one is the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer along with his acolytes in the “effective altruism” movement. They are nuts.

However, that’s not to say that Vance is correct. In the Vice-President’s hands, “ordo amoris” is Latin for MAGA. As his boss’s executive order put it:

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.

And he has described immigrants in dehumanising ways which I am certain would have distressed St Augustine: “These aren’t people, these are animals”. Or “I don’t know if you call them ‘people,’ in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.” Or they’re “poisoning the blood of our nation”.

He has justified his plans to deport 10 or 12 million illegal immigrants by describing them all as criminals. “When people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here. There is no price tag,”he said shortly after he was elected.

So Vance is partly right and partly wrong. But the part that is right is trivial and the part that is wrong is a distortion of his Church’s teaching. Obviously, it’s right that he should feed his own kids before feeding kids in Zambia. But it’s wrong to sprinkle Latin tidbits over the executive order and to imply that it is applied Catholic social teaching. The English translation of “ordo amoris” is “charity begins at home”, not “mass deportations of animals masquerading as humans”.

In any case, “ordo amoris” or ordered charity, is probably not the right frame for the knotty question of immigration, in the US or elsewhere. As Benedict XVI explained in Deus Caritas Est: “Love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful.” Charity towards our neighbour is by no means irrelevant to the plight of immigrants, legal and illegal. But the first way to determine what a government’s obligations are is through the lens of the virtue of justice. If obligations to migrants are regarded only as acts of charity, they may seem simply supererogatory (google it, to quote Mr Vance). In other words, nice idea but I’m having lunch.