"Ordo Amoris" and "Toxic Empathy"

A false religiosity encouraging people towards hate

Thomas Aquinas is on the left and Augustine on the right

In the craziness of the first week of the Trump Administration Vice President J.D. Vance kicked up a firestorm online justifying the Administrations policies, “There’s this old school — and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.” This has brought out various people quoting Augustine or Thomas Aquinas as if one or two quotes taken out of context justify Vance’s poor understanding. So, this is where I as a theologian and philosopher want to take us this week- let’s talk about “Ordo Amoris” or “Ordered Loves”.

Aristotelian Ethics

Foundational to our understanding of what Augustine or Thomas Aquinas was doing is to have an understanding of Aristotelian Ethics because this is what they were interacting with. While Plato had historically won the epistemological argument over time Aristotle had become the go-to for ethics because basically Plato passed the torch to Aristotle (cue my favorite philosophy joke of all time)

Prior to Aristotle (and there is some debate as to how prevalent or accepted this was) there was Pythagorean Ethics which was a form of asceticism. Pythagoras believed that desires were to be denied so that eventually one would not be “ruled” by any desire. Aristotle instead argued for “managing” passions or “desires”. “Wisdom” came from ordering one’s passions in such a way that they were rightly expressed in moderation. Aristotle believed there were no such things as “bad” desires just “disordered” desires. The goal, like Pythagoras, was to not be enslaved to one’s desires, “Knowledge (episteme) is not the sort of thing to be mastered by something else and dragged around like a slave.”^[1] (BTW I believe Paul may have been quoting a sentiment like this in 1 Cor. 6)

To give an example, say when I wake up Monday morning, there are a multitude of warring desires I have at that moment. One part of me wants to roll over and get more sleep, another part wants to get to the gym, another part of me is hungry, yet another part of me wants to stay in bed watching videos all day, we could go on. An Aristotelian ethicist would kindly ask me what the most important desire is- and it should be to not starve and have a roof over my head. So, my greatest desires for food and shelter dictate my getting up and moving towards going to work. Here’s the thing though, it isn’t that those other desires are “bad”. In fact, wisdom would be ordering my life in such a way that I get enough sleep, get exercise, have a creative outlet, take pleasure in mindless entertainment, etc. Even if I were to disorder my job (though it’s really important) to the detriment of my other desires, that would be unwise.

It's very important to understand that in Aristotelian ethics “right ordering” does not mean prioritizing one thing to the detriment of something else, in fact it is just the opposite. If one were to over prioritize a good thing to the detriment of their other responsibilities and obligations (allowing an “enslavement” essentially) the understanding is that you may lose even the good thing. If a man over prioritizes his family, and doesn’t do his job, and doesn’t take care of himself, eventually he’ll lose his family if he doesn’t provide for them or gets sick and dies.

Augustine Interprets Aristotle

Augustine takes up Aristotle’s idea but using the word “love” instead of “desire”. Augustine sees the proper love of God and neighbor not as a matter of “love God then neighbor” but as “love God and by loving God you will love neighbor rightly”. He says, “Now a creature can either be on par with us or lower than us; the lower creature should be used to bring us to God, the creature on par should be enjoyed, but in God. Just as you ought to enjoy yourself not in yourself but in him who made you, so too the one whom you love as yourself. Let us then enjoy both ourselves and our brothers in the Lord…” C.S. Lewis’ says the same thing, “To love you as I should, I must worship God as Creator. When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. In so far as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.” Therefore, what Lewis says next about Augustine and “ordo amoris” needs to be read through that lens, “Augustine says the ‘order of love’ (ordo amoris) is the ‘brief and true definition of virtue.’ According to this order, the human person must love everything in creation according to its proper relationship to God, which means loving God above all creatures and not inordinately loving any creature as the human person’s ultimate end.”

But some will say that Augustine limited people to those close in proximity. Let’s let Augustine speak for himself, “Further, all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you. For, suppose that you had a great deal of some commodity, and felt bound to give it away to somebody who had none, and that it could not be given to more than one person; if two persons presented themselves, neither of whom had either from need or relationship a greater claim upon you than the other, you could do nothing fairer than choose by lot to which you would give what could not be given to both. Just so among men: since you cannot consult for the good of them all, you must take the matter as decided for you by a sort of lot, according as each man happens for the time being to be more closely connected with you.”

We must note first that Augustine is adamant that we are commanded to love every man, but he admits that we are limited. Therefore, because God sovereignly happens to put certain people in our proximity, we should do what we can with what God has presented to us. This is more a matter of faithfulness than a prescriptive doctrine. It’s also important to note Augustine is imagining a scenario where one cannot do both (care for those near and far).

Imagine the world Augustine is inhabiting and why he might consider God’s calling to “place” more important- say you have a relative who lives a minimum of two weeks travel away. For them to send you a letter asking for help they have to get someone to hand carry it. That person can only travel in a group. Assuming a low end of two weeks and a high of four lets’ split the difference and say it takes three weeks for you to get the letter. Even if you were to immediately jump on a horse or camel (unlikely) it would probably be anywhere from three to four weeks till you could address your relative’s problem. That means it’s probably a minimum of a month to almost two months since the problem arose till you could possibly do anything. The odds the problem even still exists that far out are high. Augustine is encouraging people to deal with the immediate, known, and solvable over the future, unknown, and possible.

Let’s face it, we don’t live in a world like that today. We can provide material assistance to almost anyone in the world, at any time, immediately. That isn’t even getting into geopolitical politics where aid given is then used to buy the giver’s local goods (there are Americans who have jobs because of aid to Ukraine), or aid that stabilizes a region which is cheaper than us deporting people back to that region. We’re looking at a very different “ordering” of “loves” in today’s world than Augustine could have possibly imagined.

Aquinas: If You’re Going to Quote Don’t Leave Off What’s Inconvenient.

Thomas Aquinas dealt with Aristotle’s ethics in a far more intentional way. Aquinas very methodically goes through different ideas and issues Aristotle raises and responds to them in a very unique objection- opinion- responding to objections format. But Aquinas does agree to a similar “ordering” that we’ve noted from Augustine, “The good we receive from God is twofold, the good of nature, and the good of grace. Now the fellowship of natural goods bestowed on us by God is the foundation of natural love… Therefore man ought, out of charity, to love God, Who is the common good of all, more than himself: since happiness is in God as in the universal and fountain principle of all who are able to have a share of that happiness.”

Rightly ordered loves offer a cascading effect in Aquinas’ view, the more one is drawn into the “good” of God Aquinas believes that ripples out in the “good” of loving self, and others that proceeds out from the source. This is where those who want to argue that there are concentric “rings” of hierarchy misunderstand Aquinas and Aristotle. It isn’t that there is a hierarchy of loves, it’s that each that each “ring” as it outflows enables the proper love of the outer rings. He says, “God is loved as the principle of good, on which the love of charity is founded; while man, out of charity, loves himself by reason of his being a partaker of the aforesaid good, and loves his neighbor by reason of his fellowship in that good. Now fellowship is a reason for love according to a certain union in relation to God. Wherefore just as unity surpasses union, the fact that man himself has a share of the Divine good, is a more potent reason for loving than that another should be a partner with him in that share.”

So, the “good” of loving God leads to the “good” of loving self which leads to the “good” of loving neighbor. This is where Vance’s view is inherently flawed, it isn’t, “I must love this BEFORE I can love THAT” it is, “As I love God, I will experience the good of loving Him which will lead me to the good of loving my near neighbor which will lead me to the good of loving my far neighbor.” From Aquinas’ view it is more like “As I love this properly, I WILL love THAT.”

But some would argue that Aquinas does say there is a hierarchy of “loves”. To which I would say before you appeal to that you should investigate where his methodology took him. Stephen J. Pope states that you cannot simply look at Aquinas’ hierarchy and not understand why and what he assumed methodologically in making that hierarchy, “Thomas’ interpretation of the order of love is developed through a careful appropriation of available Aristotelian biology.” Thus, Aquinas was trying to say that we have different affections and different kinds of loves mostly based on biology, “Thomas’ answer relies upon Aristotle’s account of reproductive biology, according to which the husband’s form (“the active principle”, contained in the seed, is “implanted” in the wife’s uterus (which supplies the “passive and material principle”).^[2] Thomas argues that the more a being is like God, the greater its objective goodness is, and therefore the more it ought to be loved.”

This leads Aquinas to what seems like a quizzical conclusion today, that Father love is higher and more important than any other relational love, “These premises lead Thomas to conclude that a man ought to love his father more than his children because the former, as the natural principle of his being, is, ‘a more exalted good and more like God’ than the latter.” Pope notes that this is put in axiom form attributed to Ambrose, “We ought to love God first, then our parents, then our children, and lastly (among these objects) those of our household.” We must note Aquinas considered that not only children, but wives also were to be considered “lesser” in Aquinas’ hierarchy than fathers. Now Pope indicates that on one hand Aquinas may be considering different kinds of loves for parent, wife, child and in that way there isn’t necessarily a “ranking”, “Thomas actually makes the less objectionable claim that, for the most part, we have a qualitatively different kinds of love for these two objects; other things being equal, we have a greater love of care for our children and a greater love of honor for our parents.” So, even in our “ranked” “loves” it isn’t necessarily that one is more important than the other but in their difference one is seemingly more valuable than the other (at least to Aquinas).

Problems With “Ordo Amoris”

Let me get the first problem out of the way and be clear about it, while we can see insights in Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas we must admit Augustine and Aquinas are taking something that did not originate in the Bible and are attempting to reconcile Aristotle to scripture not the other way around. When our spiritual fathers are dealing directly with scripture it is incumbent upon us to give their opinions and words extra weight, especially as we seek to understand the scriptures ourselves. However, that is not the case with “Ordo Amoris”. Both Augustine and Aquinas (and Lewis by extension) are taking an ethical philosophy developed outside of scripture and trying to make it work in a Christian ethic (something I would argue Augustine does better than Aquinas). Nevertheless, this isn’t a purely “Christian” ethic, and we shouldn’t take what they have to say in this as authoritative as when they are commenting on things that have an immediate scriptural warrant.

The second issue especially when it comes to Vance and others who are using this idea is, as I hope I have shown, that they have no real informed concept of the idea they are talking about. A great example is this article on “Christian Nationalism” by Jacob Wolfe shared by author Nancy Pearcey.

What is insidious about the articles author’s tactic regarding Augustine and Lewis is he knows enough about both to know what they really meant. However, he plays with what they said to promote an idea they didn’t communicate (that you should prefer some persons nationally or racially over others). Neither Augustine nor Lewis explicitly supports his argument (the lack of quotes is telling). What is worse is then this is repeated by people who should know better. Church fathers can be proof texted just the same as the Bible, so it is incumbent on us to do work to understand what is really being promoted.

What the Bible Says

This is where I want to respond to the contentions made by Vance, Wolfe, and others (ironically also named Wolfe) that what they are promoting is simply “obeying God’s word”. In the first place there are different ethical principles that exist in parallel in any system of ethics that, while compatible, are not immediately the same thing. This is where obligations and duties are not necessarily the same things as loves and desires. There is a principle that runs throughout scripture that those who are “faithful in little” will be “faithful in much”. This is the perspective 1 Tim. 5:8 should be seen by, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” We are to judge and not accord virtue to someone who ignores the clear need of those that are in front of them (James 2). What should be convicting for many conservative Evangelicals is how many “heroes” fail this litmus test. So many people who have been lionized in Evangelicalism held slaves, have been accused of abuse by their wives and children, have cheated or divorced at least once, are notorious for having had “anger problems”, may have been effective in ministry but practically abandoned their families, etc. Many of the voices loudly demanding “love” for those “near” would sound more genuine if they admired men who did the same. IF the argument being made by Christian Nationalists was that we as a country were not properly prioritizing our own responsibilities, I would at least admit they have an argument to make. They might not have a good argument, but they could make an argument that America isn’t “caring” for its citizens (of course they would also actually have to want to do anything about THAT instead of simply suggesting that not caring for others somehow accomplishes that by fiat, but that is a different post).

The other major issue that the Bible talks about when it comes to “disordered loves” is people using religion or religiosity to ignore God’s call to their obligations, especially to the foreigner, widow and poor. This false religiosity was what Jesus confronted with children declaring their inheritance “korban” (in order to not have to support them). It was the religiosity of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned as they tithed on the minimum and allowed injustice to occur (BTW he said they should do both). In the Old Testament you have the condemnation of Jerusalem religiosity that ignored justice in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Bible over and over condemns a false religiosity that claims to be virtuous while using that false virtue to either ignore or actively harm.

This is what Vance, Wolfe, et al, are doing, they are claiming a supposed religious duty to that which is “like” OVER that which is unlike. The most obvious proponent of this is Stephen Wolfe. Wyatt Graham summarizes Wolfe like this, “I grant that my next-door neighbor by circumstance will generally be a closer friend than someone who lives across the city whom I have only met once. But Wolfe is saying more than this. He is saying we should love some kin over other kin; we should love what is close to us more than others.” As Graham and others who have reviewed Wolfe’s book agree this “ordering” inevitably leads to a racial component. (It’s notable who is championing Vance’s comments. This thread also is reflective of those who are championing “Christian Nationalism”)

The problem is where a supposed religious duty to love that which is “like” allows for an irreligious dismissal or even distain for that which is “unlike”. That somehow a “care” for immediate families results in a lack of care even a hostility towards others. It is a decided “I got mine, why should I care about them” attitude. What pervades this kind of argumentation is that it looks to “my” rights, welfare, and comfort regardless of anyone else’s or societies good. It’s almost as if what is “good” is the “supremacy” of what is “like” me and anything that infringes on that perceived superiority (whether it in actuality is detrimental to me or not) must be bad because the even the perception of my lack of priority is “unfair”. We’re seeing this with Trump’s vilifying of anything “DEI” as if the mere presence of someone in a position who is disabled, a racial or sexual minority, or a woman is an offense in and of itself.

Add to this a recent push to redefine “empathy” as “toxic” or a “sin” (more here) and you have a two-pronged attack on people’s consciences. On one hand you are only supposed to “love” (i.e. show the basic Christian charity of loving your “neighbor” as yourself) what is “like” you while simultaneously considering anything like empathy for those “unlike” a moral failing. In both these permission structures what is most operating is that there are people it is ok to not love or even feel compassion for. People who aren’t “like” and who don’t “repent” (whatever “repentance” is supposed to look like) do not deserve empathy or consideration. What I find diabolical is the insinuation that this “obedience” is directed by God. This is, quite frankly, a way to at the least prioritize one’s own selfishness, individualism, and comfort or at worst sanctify outright racism and hatred.

It matters not whether the material is “softened” or repackaged. What is telling is the outright racists are saying the same thing using the same words. It’s telling that the Jacob Wolfe article while purporting to be “reasonable” quotes the exact same sources as Germany loving antisemites. Or take this post that admits a group that has boldly promoted Nazi propaganda (Stone Choir) shouldn’t be too excited Vance appears to be repeating them,

This is worse than merely arguing about dead philosophers and theologians. It is intentionally trying to deceive people into calling what is good evil and what is evil good.

Jesus beyond all these things intentionally called those who follow him to more. He very specifically challenged people who want to love that which is “like” more than “unlike”.

“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:32-36)”

If someone is trying to argue who we are to love and be merciful to according to our affinity to them I would contend they aren’t arguing a “Christian” concept. According to Jesus they’re claiming to love God while hating what makes him God. The Apostle James would say that’s pretty demonic.

(Thanks for reading! I’m always grateful for those who lend me their time. If you want to get my latest please subscribe and consider supporting me in making this content. If you’d like to gift a one-time gift of coffee or dinner, that would also be appreciated https://venmo.com/u/Jason-Mallow-1 Lord willing I’ll see you again next week)

---

^[1] Robert Bolton, “Aristotle on the Objectivity of Ethics”, in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy IV: Aristotle’s Ethics, ed. by John P. Anton, Anthony Preus, (Albanay, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), 14.

^[2] If there are those of you knowledgeable with Doug Wilson’s “the man penetrates the woman receives” and more recently Joshua Butler’s book on sex that used similar “fertilization” imagery and you are making a connection here YOU ARE NOT WRONG.