I was raised a Roman Catholic, attended parochial school for eight years, then went to a private high school which featured instruction by the Christian Brothers, as well as lay teachers. While I am far from an expert on the teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church, I was certainly exposed to a constant indoctrination of those tenets during my formative years.
I can't recall if I have conveyed the story of when doubt in my religion of birth first began, but it occurred in seventh grade. I had two nuns as teachers that year for all subjects, science, math, religion, all subjects.
At one point, after a science class in which Darwin's theory of evolution was covered, I asked a question in religion class about how we should interpret the Book of Genesis in general, and the story of Adam and Eve in particular as it relates to the topic of the science class that we just left, again, a topic taught by a nun.
Sadly, I was told to sit down, (we used to have to stand to ask a question). Now, perhaps the good sister did not want to broach such a difficult topic, or perhaps even thought that my question did not reflect the curiosity level of my fellow classmates, but remember, I was taught to believe everything in the bible as God's word, the Truth, and here was a science lesson that seemed to contradict those words.
In retrospect, I don't blame the nun although I would have expected her to have asked that same question herself at some point in her life in preparation to teach. At worse, I expected that I could have been asked to see her after class, to discuss the topic, if she wasn't prepared to talk openly to all the children.
Regardless, that was the moment when I realized that the Truth of the Bible was rooted in faith, not fact, which is certainly fine, but should be taught as such. As I sit here, 50 plus years later, I have encountered countless people still, who believe in the Bible as a history or science book.
As a young adult, searching for meaning (as they say), I read a number of religious tomes, including the Bible, although I focused more on the New Testament. Today, I respect the Bible as a source for stories that provide moral guidance. Stories to make the complex seem more simple, easier to understand. And yes, to present rules for the faithful to follow, so they don't have to struggle with their own interpretations.
Which brings me to the concept of ordo amoris, which I must admit, I was never taught, or if taught, never made an impression on me.
For those unfamiliar with this moral theological notion, it basically refers to an ever expanding circle of love and good will which we should follow. To put it simply, you should show more love to your spouse and family first, then to your neighbors and friends, then to those in other states or other countries.
Ordo amoris, or an order of love.
The reason it entered mainstream conversation was that JD Vance used this theory to justify mass deportations of illegal aliens from America, which, is no surprise considering the president's rallying cry of America First.
Before posting, I read two articles which seem to look with skepticism at Vance's use of ordo amoris as justification for the rather inhumane treatment of people (yes, they are people, children of God as I was taught during my years in Catholic school).
The first is from the America magazine, the second from the National Catholic Register. The one from America is much longer and goes into much more depth as to why Vance's interpretation of ordo amoris is incorrectly being applied to mass deportations. Also, both articles touch on Pope Francis's reaction both to the mass deportation plans, and Vance's justification. If you only have the energy or time to read one, I recommend the first.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/02/13/ordo-amoris-stephen-pope-vance-249926
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-vance-clash-over-ordo-amoris
After reading the article in America, I initially thought there was nothing I could add, as it detailed a bunch of reasons to decry Vance's interpretation. But as I was typing this post, a number of thoughts popped into my head; here they are.
First, I do recall that there is a pope infallibility theory in Roman Catholicism which basically asserts that the pope is free from error when speaking on faith and morals. Now, while it can certainly be debated if the pope's statement that mass deportations by the United States of America runs contrary to the teachings of Jesus, I would tend to give the pope the benefit of the doubt before Vance. I mean, one of them has studied scriptures all his life, devoted his life to Jesus Christ, and was elected by his peers, all the other cardinals of the Church, while the other is a politician who once declared that Trump was America's Hitler but is now his vice president.
What I want to know is what the pastor at Vance's church is telling him about disagreeing with the spiritual leader of his religion, at least on this topic? Did he correct Vance, admonish him for openly dissenting from the pope's opinion and advice concerning deportations, or did he just glad-hand him and take his (one would imagine) large, weekly tithe?
More to the point however, if we assume that Vance is right, that we should spend our love on our family first, etc, to me it seems that he isn't even doing that. Or not very consistently.
First, Vance is the Vice President of all Americans. To me, that means that his circle of loved ones is far bigger than the average person's who can really only directly effect a very small number of people. Vance's input into this administration's policies, and his defense of them, should require him to consider everyone in the country, not just those who voted for him or agree with him. One might say that morally speaking, all elected officers in our government, from local to state to federal, assume a higher moral standard, a larger circle, if we are to agree with ordo amoris.
So, while most undocumented people are not citizens, many have married Americans, or gave birth to children on American soil. Are they not part of Vance's circle? This inconsistency seems even more obvious, and odious, considering the attacks of birthright citizenship. That juxtaposition seems to define Vance's version of ordo amoris; just change the definition of those we want to exclude from our circle.
There are a few things I would like to ask Mr Vance, but one critical question would be how he would react to one of his children experiencing gender identity issues. While I am sure he would make sure his child received some kind of health care, perhaps even mental health care, I expect he would hope that his child "grows out of it" or resolves his/her problems in a way which conforms with Vance's assumption that there are only 2 genders.
But if not, would he ostracize that child, as has Elon Musk who apparently, has a transgender child whom he disavows? Would he force that child from his circle of love as thousands of Christian parents have done when faced with a gay or transgender child?
As is true of so many moral guidelines, there is no asterisk after the ordo amoris theory of morality that allows you to pick and choose who to exclude from your order of love. That seems to be the biggest point of the criticism of Vance's use of ordo amoris, that he believes that showing love to people in the outer circles of one's life somehow reduces how much love one can display for those in a closer circle. As if there is a limit of love one can convey so we need to make sure we don't use it all up on people not in our family, or neighborhood or country.
I guess someone like Mother Theresa didn't get that memo.
Another big problem I have with Vance resurrecting this theological philosophy is one I expressed when criticizing the justification for the Supreme Court to allow abortion to return to state control. If you remember, one of their reasons was that the United States did not have a strong tradition of allowing abortion throughout its history. The fact that women have had the right to vote for less time than America has existed, didn't seem to enter into their calculations.
In this case, Vance is going back hundreds of years before America even existed to find rationale for treating immigrants mercilessly. Funny how the GOP seems to love dredging up theories from the past when woman were treated as property, or when only white men had the right to vote, or when divine right was a common argument for why most people were considered peasants without the ability to reason or govern or make choices for themselves.
In the end, Vance would have us believe that blaming American children of mixed immigration status for their situation, or blaming immigrants that flee other countries for freedom or economic opportunity is OK in God's eyes as long as we love those in our own family, or own neighborhood, or own country.
As I said at the start of this post, I am no expert on theology, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but I certainly don't believe in a god that encourages us to treat inhumanely those born in a different place, or children born to parents who crossed a border without permission, or people who are in the minority about who they love or how they perceive their identity.
As for JD Vance and those who seek to wrap their cruel policies in a religious jacket, I am not impressed. It rings of mental masturbation, and not in a good way.
--
I was perusing some old posts today and came upon this one which seems appropriate given the topic.
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/04/discrimination-in-christian-nation.html
No comments:
Post a Comment