What is Ordo Amoris? And Why Does J.D. Vance Care?
Saturday, March 1, 2025. The Pope is in my thoughts.
The Christian doctrine of ordo amoris—the idea that love must be properly ordered in a divine hierarchy—has long shaped theological and ethical discussions.
From Augustine to Aquinas to C.S. Lewis, Christian thought has framed love as something to be ranked, structured, and disciplined.
But beneath the surface of this doctrine lies an implicit, often unspoken reality: ordo amoris may function less as a true ethical framework and more as an inventory of social capital—an ideological system that organizes human relationships in ways that sustain social, religious, and economic hierarchies.
In post we will explore how ordo amoris has historically served as a ledger of obligations, a method of managing social bonds, and a theological tool for maintaining power.
If love is something to be ranked, prioritized, and allocated, then who benefits from this system? And who gets left out?
In a recent interview, Vice President J.D. Vance invoked the concept of ordo amoris—Latin for "order of love"—to justify prioritizing the needs of American citizens over those of immigrants.
He suggested that compassion should begin with one's family, then neighbors, community, and fellow citizens, before extending globally.
This interpretation has sparked debate among theologians and religious leaders.
Pope Francis, for instance, responded pointedly with the emphasis that Christian love must be universal and inclusive, referencing the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate that love should extend beyond one's immediate community.
Critics argue that Vance's application of ordo amoris misinterprets its theological roots, potentially using it to support exclusionary policies.
"Ordo Amoris" as a Social Accounting System
Love as a Ledger of Obligations
A close examination of ordo amoris reveals that it has functioned as a moralized version of social capital management—an implicit contract that determines where one's love and loyalty should be invested for the maximum ethical (and often material) return.
Consider the classic formulation of ordo amoris:
Love of God
Love of family (spouse, parents, children)
Love of neighbors and community
Love of self
Love of material things
This ranking can be interpreted as a prioritization of relationships that sustain a particular social order.
Loving God first ensures allegiance to religious institutions, family loyalty reinforces intergenerational stability, and neighborly love sustains the broader community. Self-love, conveniently, comes last—ensuring that individual needs never disrupt the prescribed hierarchy.
From a sociological standpoint, this resembles an economic model rather than a moral doctrine.
Love is treated as a finite resource—one that must be allocated efficiently to ensure the proper functioning of the system.
It is a calculus of relational investment, where breaking the hierarchy (say, by prioritizing personal well-being over family duty) is treated as a moral failure, rather than as a rational response to an oppressive structure.
Love as a Form of Social Capital
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu defined social capital as the sum of resources embedded in relationships—networks of obligation, reciprocity, and influence.
Ordo amoris functions similarly: it dictates whom one is obliged to invest love in, and in what order. This theological structure ensures that love operates as a currency within an established social system.
For example:
Prioritizing love for one's parents over love for oneself ensures intergenerational continuity and prevents radical autonomy.
Loving one’s community before oneself ensures that the individual does not disrupt the prevailing social structure.
Placing divine love at the top of the hierarchy secures religious institutions as the ultimate beneficiaries of one’s devotion and obedience.
By positioning love as something that must be properly ordered, ordo amoris ensures that love cannot be an act of individual freedom but must instead serve a preexisting structure of power.
Who Benefits from "The Order of Love"?
If love must be properly ordered, then it must serve someone. A deep critique of ordo amoris reveals that it has often been used as a tool to reinforce the interests of institutions and social elites.
The Role of Religious Institutions
The placement of God at the top of the hierarchy ensures that divine love—and by extension, the church—is always the primary focus of devotion. But in practical terms, this has historically translated to loyalty to religious authorities.
Consider the way ordo amoris has functioned throughout history:
In medieval Europe, the church used this doctrine to justify absolute religious authority, framing love of God as inseparable from obedience to clerical hierarchy.
In Protestant traditions, this hierarchy of love justified Puritan family structures, where individual desires were subordinated to religious and communal expectations.
In modern evangelical circles, ordo amoris has been deployed to enforce rigid gender roles and keep believers within institutional control.
When love is structured hierarchically, it is not freely given—it is extracted, much like tithes or taxes.
The Function of Patriarchy in Love’s Hierarchy
Historically, ordo amoris has reinforced gender hierarchies, particularly in Christian teachings on marriage and family. Women, in particular, have been expected to rank their affections in ways that prioritize male authority.
For example:
A wife is expected to love her husband second only to God, ensuring that her loyalty remains within the family structure.
A mother is expected to prioritize her children over herself, ensuring that she remains in a caregiving role rather than seeking self-actualization.
A woman is discouraged from self-love if it disrupts her duties to family and church.
This hierarchy serves a social function: it prevents love from being freely distributed in ways that could challenge traditional power dynamics.
If love were not ranked but freely given, a woman might choose to prioritize self-love over sacrificial love, a believer might prioritize friendships over religious institutions, and a family might prioritize their own well-being over church obligations. God forbid.
Love as a Mechanism of Control
At its core, ordo amoris functions as a theological mechanism of social discipline.
By teaching that love must be ranked, it discourages emotional autonomy. The doctrine subtly suggests that to love “incorrectly” is to sin. But what does it mean to love incorrectly?
To prioritize one's own needs over family duty? Selfish.
To prioritize friendships over religious community? Disloyal.
To prioritize romantic love over divine love? Idolatrous.
By moralizing love in this way, ordo amoris ensures that love is never purely about human connection but is always subjected to an overarching system of discipline.
The Alternative: Love as an Ecology, Not a Hierarchy
If ordo amoris functions as a kind of theological ledger—an accounting system for emotional investments—then what would a more humanistic model of love look like?
Rather than treating love as something to be ranked, an alternative model would see love as an ecology—a dynamic, interconnected system where different kinds of love coexist and sustain one another.
Love as a Non-Hierarchical Network
Instead of treating love as a competition (where one form of love must be ranked above another), love can be understood as an interdependent web. Loving oneself does not preclude loving one’s family; loving a partner does not necessitate reducing one’s love for God. This model removes the artificial scarcity that ordo amoris imposes.
Love as Liberation, Not Obligation
A more liberating approach to love would view it not as an obligation to be ranked but as a force that seeks flourishing. This means rejecting the notion that love must always serve religious or social systems and instead affirming that love’s highest purpose is the well-being of those involved.
Love as Ethical Discernment
Rather than using a predetermined hierarchy to make ethical decisions about love, a more ethical approach would rely on discernment—contextual, relational, and fluid decision-making.
Because sometimes self-love is the right choice; sometimes family love takes precedence; sometimes divine love (in whatever form one understands it) is the guiding force.
The Order of Love as a Theological Bureaucracy
Let’s be frank. Ultimately, ordo amoris is not just a doctrine about love—it is a system for organizing human relationships in ways that serve existing power structures.
It functions as a theological bureaucracy, determining where affections should be directed and discouraging any form of love that could challenge institutional authority.
It seems that Pope Francis offered J.D. Vance a schooling in ordo amoris.
Reminding us of the Good Samaritan, Pope Francis inspires a more ethical, humanistic vision of love which rejects rigid hierarchies in favor of love as a liberating, self-sustaining force—one that does not rank, but embraces, nurtures, and transforms.
Order Amoris is the fruit of Medieval thought. The Pope thinks we can do better.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.